ATD 11, Jim Coleman Finals: Inglewood Jacks (1) vs. Regina Pats (2)

[arrbez]

The Inglewood Jacks
GM: arrbez
Coach: Harry Sinden

Cy Denneny - Joe Malone - Hooley Smith (A)
Dany Heatley - Denis Savard - Sergei Makarov
Nick Metz - Ken Mosdell - Joe Klukay
Al Secord - Bernie Nicholls - Bill Guerin
Mel Bridgman, Shane Doan

Slava Fetisov (C) - Eric Desjardins
Chris Chelios (A) - Jimmy Watson
Leo Reise jr - Glen Harmon
Pat Egan

Harry Lumley
Chuck Rayner

PP1: Denneny - Savard - Makarov - Fetisov - Desjardins
PP2: Heatley - Smith - Malone - Chelios - Reise

PK1: Metz - Klukay - Chelios - Watson
PK2: Smith - Mosdell - Fetisov - Harmon




VS.

The Regina Pats



GM: seventiesvancitylordluongo
Coach: Tommy Gorman

Aurel Joliat - Darryl Sittler (A) - Guy Lafleur
Tommy Phillips - Norm Ullman - Odie Cleghorn
Craig Ramsay - Don Luce - Danny Gare (A)
Harry P. Watson - Jack Adams - Bobby Schmautz

Sprague Cleghorn (A) - Red Horner
Lionel Conacher - Joe Simpson
Jack Marshall - Art Coulter (C)


Clint Benedict
Roberto Luongo

Extras:
C Doug Weight
RW/D Ron Stewart
D/C/LW Goldie Prodger​

​

let me know if you guys need anything changed for your roster

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

So just what kind of team is Regina dealing with here?

Inglewood's GM goes by the name "arrbez" but over here in Regina we ain't fooled. It doesn't take much effort to unscramble this word to read "r zebras".

Now this could be interpreted in two ways. Either that means that the Inglewood Jacks ARE zebras, meaning they will huddle together in a pack on the ice, and run from predators at the first sign of danger. Regina's Sprague Cleghorn is a known predator so this doesn't look good for Inglewood.

Or, does it mean "OUR" zebras? As in, they have bought and now own the referees in this series, in an effort to ensure an easy victory? Certainly after winning the last round in 5 games after barely showing up, one has to wonder if the zebras are, indeed, Inglewood property.

In any case, this is playoff hockey and a team that plays like zebras cannot win. If bribery is being used as a strategy, this must also be punished. Either way, we must ensure that integrity is the #1 priority, so vote for Regina.

 

[arrbez]

It should be noted that the Zebra is widely regarded as the second most dangerous animal in the jungle, behind only the mighty dingo.

 

[seventieslord]

It's also the mightiest animal on the ice, when its pockets are padded by Inglewood's showbiz dollars.

 

[arrbez]

I won't deny it, I hold certain sway over the officials. There's upsides to being ridiculously good looking, and this is one of them.

 

[raleh]

I won't deny it, I hold certain sway over the officials. There's upsides to being ridiculously good looking, and this is one of them.

"I was blocked out on the play. The replays show that."

 

[vancityluongo]

Sorry I won't be able to participate too much in this series, I'm currently in Australia, and internet is very hard to get. Right now, I'm stealing internet from a business across the street, and I'm scared that I'm gonna get shutdown any second.

Anyways, I have yet to see a ZEBRA on my trip. Just a bunch of pictures of dead ones. Is that a sign? I'd like to think so.

 

[arrbez]

Anyways, I have yet to see a ZEBRA on my trip. Just a bunch of pictures of dead ones. Is that a sign? I'd like to think so.

Except you're in Australia where everything is upside down and inside out. So really, it's a good sign for arrbez.

 

[vancityluongo]

Except you're in Australia where everything is upside down and inside out. So really, it's a good sign for arrbez.

Seeing as your a zebrra backwards though, I'd say it's a good sign for Regina, the town named after ROYALTY. I saw a lion, the king of the jungle, hunt down a zebra on a movie. So really, Inglewood is screwed.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm going to be gone until Sunday afternoon. No one seems to be in a rush yet to get the voting underway so hopefully when I get back there is still time for discussion.

but, in case there is not, I should throw something together since I'm hitting the road within half an hour.

Probably the biggest key to success for Regina will be goaltending. Clint Benedict did nothing but win cup after cup, and Lumley's playoff record is as spotty as Mr. Burns' head. You've gotta think the bubble is about to burst for this guy.

Although Inglewood's first line is well-constructed, the better players are on Regina. Lafleur is the best of the bunch, then Joliat, Malone, and Denneny are all in a close bunch, then Sittler, then Smith. It's not a major advantage but I like Regina's chances there.

The second line is where we will have a field day. Heatley, Savard and Makarov make quite the soft trio. Ullman, Phillips, and Cleghorn aren't major bruisers, but all have a physical element to their games that their Inglewood counterparts just can't match. Plus, dare I say, they are better players too, with the exception of Makarov, the best second line player in the series.

It seems that reconstructing old real-life PK units has been the key to advancing in this conference. It's the end of the line for one of them. I like Metz and Klukay a lot, but I don't know that there's ever been a line as gosh-darned efficient as Ramsay's unit. That said, whereas I could claim a great advantage previously, this is much closer than I am used to. Inglewood's checking line is great and has no exploitable flaw.

Inglewood has finally met their match in defense units. While they were able to claim a large advantage throughout the playoffs, that is no longer the case. Fetisov and Chelios are probably the two best defensemen in this series (though a case can easily be made showing Cleghorn dominated his era to a degree far greater than Chelios did) but Regina has the next four best in Cleghorn, Conacher, Coulter, and Horner. Every other defenseman on each team is strong, with nothing exploitable. There is a good mix of all types of skill in both defense corps - especially toughness on the Regina side. Call this one even.

Is it just me, or does Inglewood's 4th line seem a bit "thrown together"? There's physicality there, with Guerin and Secord. Nicholls' physicality is underrated too. It just doesn't seem cohseive. They're tough, but not bang-and-crash, as a unit. That said, it's good offensively for a 4th line and should match the output of our line.

It's also clear that Regina holds a coaching advantage. Gorman is better than Sinden. Gorman won Stanley Cups with ragtag bunches of players, led by defensive stalwarts like Conacher and Coulter. Sinden won a cup but coached just as many games as Gorman, at a time when schedules were nearly twice as long. He doesn't have the experience, and most importantly, the winning experience. And in this series, he doesn't have Bobby Orr.

If we use our 2nd and 4th lines to make life difficult for Inglewood's 2nd, and get into Lumley's head early, Benedict and Gorman will out-goaltend and out-coach their Inglewood counterparts to a series victory.

So, vote for Regina. We're the best. Look who we beat to get here - possibly the top team in the draft. To be the man, you gotta beat the man.

 

[Sturminator]

The second line is where we will have a field day. Heatley, Savard and Makarov make quite the soft trio. Ullman, Phillips, and Cleghorn aren't major bruisers, but all have a physical element to their games that their Inglewood counterparts just can't match. Plus, dare I say, they are better players too, with the exception of Makarov, the best second line player in the series.

You are not giving Denis Savard enough credit here, 70's. I think he's an easy 3rd behind Makarov and Ullman on the 2nd lines. I do agree with you that Inglewood has a puckwinning problem on their 2nd line (Dany Heatley is hardly a high-end digger in this context), but Savard - Makarov skating in on the Conacher - Simpson duo is not great for Regina. Conacher's lack of mobility is a serious issue here, and Simpson's defensive credentials are questionable.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

A few thoughts on the series.

In Inglewood's favour:
- In addition to having home ice advantage, Inglewood should be much better-rested. They've played one fewer series than Inglewood (due to a first-round bye) and swept their previous series (while Regina had a seven-game war with Detroit). Although one could argue Inglewood may be rusty in the first game back, over the course of the series, rest clearly favours the Jacks.
- Although I agree that Seventies has better defensive depth, it's worth re-iterating that Inglewood has the two best defensemen in the series. (I have both Chelios and Fetisov a few spots ahead of Cleghorn). Since they're split up, the Pats will face a game-changing defenseman for (at least) 45 minutes per game. This is especially problematic since Inglewood has better control of the matchups due to home ice advantage. Although Regina clearly has better defensive depth, Desjardins and Watson are solid, consistent players who rarely make mistakes and thus are not likely to be exploited (though of course they're unlikely to make a significant contribution towards winning unlike, say, Coulter and Conacher).

In Regina's favour:
- Benedict is a better goalie than Lumley, by a fair margin. As I discussed before, he had a nearly Hasek-like stranglehold on every key statistics (GP, W, GAA, shutouts) during his era and there's some evidence to show that he wasn't a product of his team.
- The Pats have better offensive depth. Although both teams have similar checking lines, defensively, the Pats have Gare, a game-breaker offensively (1st, 5th, 12th in goal-scoring), in addition to consistent, reliable secondary offense from Ramsay and Luce. Regina's Adams is easily the best scorer on either team's fourth line (or third line, for that matter). I was surprised to find that Watson (7-16-20 in scoring) is surprisingly close to Paiment (10-13-15). Regina's Simpson is the best scorer among depth defenders.

 

[vancityluongo]

Although Inglewood has two gamebreakers on the backend, I'd like to argue that we have three gamebreakers at different positions. Benedict IMO, is a good bet to steal at least a game or two in this series at least, and while I don't think Lumley or Rayner will necessarily lose the Jacks any, we do have that large advantage in nets. Lafleur is by a large, large margin, the best forward in this series. He's our best player, and although he's gonna be facing a rock all game long, I think he'll get the job done better than Inglewood's first line against Cleghorn. Speaking of Sprague, that's our third gamebreaker. While he may or may not be as good as Fetisov/Chelios, I'd say he's pretty damn close either way, and also has that potential to change a game singlehandedly.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Although Inglewood has two gamebreakers on the backend, I'd like to argue that we have three gamebreakers at different positions. Benedict IMO, is a good bet to steal at least a game or two in this series at least, and while I don't think Lumley or Rayner will necessarily lose the Jacks any, we do have that large advantage in nets. Lafleur is by a large, large margin, the best forward in this series. He's our best player, and although he's gonna be facing a rock all game long, I think he'll get the job done better than Inglewood's first line against Cleghorn. Speaking of Sprague, that's our third gamebreaker. While he may or may not be as good as Fetisov/Chelios, I'd say he's pretty damn close either way, and also has that potential to change a game singlehandedly.

I think Malone and Makarov give Inglewood two more game breakers. Cleghorn may subdue Malone, but Makarov is just as dangerous.

 

[vancityluongo]

I think Malone and Makarov give Inglewood two more game breakers. Cleghorn may subdue Malone, but Makarov is just as dangerous.

Depending on how you define gamebreaker I guess. You can also add Joliat and possibly even Ullman on our side as well, but I think at this level, none of these guys are.

 

[seventieslord]

A few thoughts on the series.

In Inglewood's favour:
- In addition to having home ice advantage, Inglewood should be much better-rested. They've played one fewer series than Inglewood (due to a first-round bye) and swept their previous series (while Regina had a seven-game war with Detroit). Although one could argue Inglewood may be rusty in the first game back, over the course of the series, rest clearly favours the Jacks.

We're in game shape. I'm not worried. Inglewood must have had some lucky bounces in round 3 to not show up and win the last series in 5 (later clarified by EB) games.

In Regina's favour:
- Benedict is a better goalie than Lumley, by a fair margin. As I discussed before, he had a nearly Hasek-like stranglehold on every key statistics (GP, W, GAA, shutouts) during his era and there's some evidence to show that he wasn't a product of his team.

Let's just call this a "wide margin"

- The Pats have better offensive depth. Although both teams have similar checking lines, defensively, the Pats have Gare, a game-breaker offensively (1st, 5th, 12th in goal-scoring), in addition to consistent, reliable secondary offense from Ramsay and Luce. Regina's Adams is easily the best scorer on either team's fourth line (or third line, for that matter). I was surprised to find that Watson (7-16-20 in scoring) is surprisingly close to Paiment (10-13-15). Regina's Simpson is the best scorer among depth defenders.

While I agree with the point as a whole, what point are you making about Watson? Surprised to find he was that good, or surprised to find he was that bad?

Watson was not much of a playmaker, which is why his points finishes aren't that great. But he was an excellent finisher - Seven times in the top-20.

You are not giving Denis Savard enough credit here, 70's. I think he's an easy 3rd behind Makarov and Ullman on the 2nd lines. I do agree with you that Inglewood has a puckwinning problem on their 2nd line (Dany Heatley is hardly a high-end digger in this context), but Savard - Makarov skating in on the Conacher - Simpson duo is not great for Regina. Conacher's lack of mobility is a serious issue here, and Simpson's defensive credentials are questionable.

Poor word choice on my part. Savard is definitely better than Cleghorn, and most likely better than Phillips. I was saying that position-for-position, we have the better players, aside from the Cleghorn/Makarov comparison.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Depending on how you define gamebreaker I guess. You can also add Joliat and possibly even Ullman on our side as well, but I think at this level, none of these guys are.

I guess it's all relative, but, I think Joliat and Ullman are a clear step below Malone and Makarov. Offensively, Malone was Lalonde's peer. He didn't have the completeness, but, when it comes to finishing, they were equal. And Makarov was the undisputed dominant offensive for what was essentially an all-star team.

 

[vancityluongo]

I guess it's all relative, but, I think Joliat and Ullman are a clear step below Malone and Makarov. Offensively, Malone was Lalonde's peer. He didn't have the completeness, but, when it comes to finishing, they were equal. And Makarov was the undisputed dominant offensive for what was essentially an all-star team.

Key word bolded. Offensively, and in terms if being a offensive gamebreaker I guess, yeah they have a advantage. But I think Makarov and Malone don't make that "cut", for "offensive gamebreaker" in my mind, while Joliat and Ullman definitely do not either. However, there's a lot more to the games of these guys than pure offense, and that's where I'd say our two bridge that overall gap, big time. A gamebreaker doesn't have to be pure out offense, that's certainly not why I'm classifying Fetisov, Chelios or Cleghorn as such. You said it yourself, Malone doesn't have the completeness of Lalonde, and while I'm not saying Ullman was as good or anything, but he's a lot closer to Lalonde in terms of two-way play than Malone, IMO. So offensive gamebreakers, yeah those two are closer, but IMO at least, our two guys make up for that with their completeness.

But, again, a matter of opinion and judgement, as there is no true way of defining a "gamebreaker".

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

That's like me saying Clint Benedict isn't a game breaker because he can't score. Obviously he is because he can steal games with great goaltending. Just as a Malone hat trick can be the reason Inglewood wins. The idea of being a gamebreaker, IMO, usually benefits those with a focussed skill set.

 

[vancityluongo]

That's like me saying Clint Benedict isn't a game breaker because he can't score. Obviously he is because he can steal games with great goaltending. Just as a Malone hat trick can be the reason Inglewood wins. The idea of being a gamebreaker, IMO, usually benefits those with a focussed skill set.

I understand that, but my whole point is how far do we take it? My whole argument is that I don't think Malone, Makarov, Joliat or Ullman are players at this level that at any time can get that hattrick. Lafleur, yeah. I'd bet that Malone or Makarov over a 6 or 7 game series get around 4-6 goals, but again, is that "gamebreaker worthy"? Possibly, possibly not, again, all depends on opinion. You're right that it benefits those with focused skill sets, which is why I mentioned that while Malone and Makarov are much better offensively, and in terms of being "gamebreakers", however taking two-way play and intangibles into consideration the overall gap between those two an Ullman/Joliat is not that huge. I hope that makes sense.

Another thing to look at that HO touched on; Gare. Can he be considered a gamebreaker? (HO listed him as one) How much does role affect this discussion? He may not be as good offensively as Malone or Makarov, but then again, that isn't his job. Here's again where that two-way play standard comes into effect. Does that help Gare, or hurt him, in terms of being a gamebreaker.

I'm not really sure where this discussion is going to go, to be honest. It's all subjective anyways, and it's a lot harder in this context, as while a guy like Luongo is a gamebreaker in real life, it's hard to make that judgement. In this case, obviously Luongo has very minimal affect in the outcome of this series, but still, I think you all know what I'm trying to get at.

 

[seventieslord]

Gare is a gamebreaker as far as 3rd-liners are concerned. Not in the ATD as a whole. I agree with my co-GM; Lafleur is the series' true gamebreaker.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I understand that, but my whole point is how far do we take it? My whole argument is that I don't think Malone, Makarov, Joliat or Ullman are players at this level that at any time can get that hattrick.

I guess that's a difference in opinion. For me, Makarov and Malone are still dominant even in an ATD format. Particularly Makarov, whom, I struggle to see as that inferior to Lafleur...

 

[seventieslord]

What kind of coach was Harry Sinden?

This came up in the hockhist mailing list on yahoo just today. I didn't go looking for "dirt" on Sinden but the topic came up.

Tonight while driving home I heard former player agent and Maple Leaf official Bill Watters state that the Boston Bruins of the late 60's early 70's should have been a dynasty and won 4-5 Stanley Cups with the talent that they had. He also claimed that in their losses to Montreal in 1969 and 1971 as well as Philly in 1974 they were outcoached and placed the blame for those losses on Harry Sinden, Tom Johnson and Bep Guidlon. He also said the same about the Don Cherry era Bruins in so far as their loss in 1979 to Montreal.

I agree that with the talent on the Bruins in the early 70's they should have been more successful - but outcoached? Hmm not sure. Any thoughts?

Coaching may not have played much of a role with the Bruins. For my book "The Rangers, The Bruins, And the End of an Era" I spoke to Ed Westfall and asked him about Tom Johnson. Here is part of what he said.

"...We were a bunch of party guys, we were swashbucklers or whatever you wanted to say. We were never overconfident but we liked to party. When the game was over, on the road in particular, everybody showed up. We all showed up, had our beverages, we usually put five bucks in the hat, ordered draft beer, had burgers, you know. And we all talked about, you know, hockey.

"But then it started to drift a little bit. And so I remember once we were in Chicago and it was late in the season and we were all sitting around talking about, 'cause most of us were around for the '70 Cup, and it just kind of snowballed. Somebody had said something and I don't, I can't be specific but it was so much fun winning the Stanley Cup and we said let's win it again. We got to win it again, no matter what. ******** to anything else, it's up to us, the players. And this kind of reverberated around with the beers and the burgers and the peanuts on the floor and all the **** that we were in, in Chicago, I'm pretty sure. And we decided right then and there no matter what and I don't mean to demean Tom Johnson but he didn't count, we count. And we're going to win the Cup again. And everybody bought in, a little bit like the three Musketeers, you know, kind of thing. And we said we're going to remind each other, every game all the way, along the way, for whatever's left, there wasn't much left in the season. That we're going to win the Cup no matter what. And we just, and I think that mantra, that theme, that thing reverberated all the time. Somebody would remind, remember? Come on, we're going to, yep, yep, okay. Yep, yep. And it really did. There's no reason for me to remember that other than that it happened. "

So you can see that the players took on their winning attitude on their own. Fred Stanfield added this.

"Tommy was very quiet, didn't have to say very much because the team, when he got behind the bench and started coaching, the team was already matured and he had a set team, pretty much. So it was kind of a nice position to be in. If I was coaching, I'd love to have a team like that. [laughter] Tom was good, he liked the players. He did a nice job with us. He took us and we won the second one in '72. We beat the Rangers in New York."

So again it seems that the coach didn't have a big influence.

The quotes mainly speak about Johnson in general but it seems like that group of players sort of coached/motivated itself, and this is essentially the same group that had Sinden as a head coach.

And of course, you have the fact that he really coached just four full seasons and had Bobby Orr the whole time. 136-105-55, 18-10, One stanley Cup? That's a bogey for the course.

I can see Harry having an interview with Bob and Bob from Office Space... "Harry.... what would you say..... ya DO here?"

 

[seventieslord]

Playoff Scoring

Given the depth of scoring in each lineup I thought I'd take a look and see if any differences can emerge with quick analysis.

I took a quick look at the playoff scoring histories of each of our top-12 forwards. As I said in the Lada series, I could have done this for defensemen, too, but a quick glance tells me that we would get painfully similar results that wouldn't be worth the effort.

All I did was take a look at all the top-10 finishes in the playoffs in goals, assists, and points for each player.

(Tommy Phillips, the sole "very early" player in the series was given two firsts, a sixth and a seventh for the two SCF series he dominated against top competition and the two other playoffs he ranked highly (1903, 1904); he was also credited with two firsts,a sixth and a seventh in points for this, the flipside is that instead of assuming he was just as dominant at playmaking I assumed all assists to be zero as they are currently recorded by history - and yes, in case anyone is astute enough to notice, I forgot the 6th and 7th for Phillips in the Lada series)

Regina comes out like this:

Goals: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 (7 time leader, 11 top-2, 22 top-5, 29 top-10)
Assists: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 9 (4 time leader, 7 top-2, 11 top-5, 13 top-10)
Points: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 6 6 6 7 7 8 (7 time leader, 11 top-2, 16 top-5, 22 top-10)

Before showing you Inglewood's results, there is one thing I must go over first. Joe Malone played in the "playoffs" in 1912 and 1913. I am not including Joe's results for these two series, and here is why:

In 1912, it was a two-game, total goals series against Moncton of the maritime league. Malone's Bulldogs featued Joe Hall, Goldie Prodger, Eddie Oatman, Paddy Moran, and Jack McDonald. The Moncton squad featured Tommy Smith, Louis Berlinquette, and a cast of unkowns. The 17-3 total score reflects what a joke this matchup was. Malone finished 2nd behind teammate Jack McDonald with 5 goals in the "series".

In 1913, it was also a two-game, total goals series, this time against Sydney from the Maritime League. This time Malone had Tommy Smith with him, as well as Hall, Moran, plus Harry Mummery and Rusty Crawford. Sydney had Ken Randall surrounded by unknowns. The Trail even states that Randall seemed to be the only man who could skate with the Quebec boys." the total score was 20-5, with Malone scoring 9 goals and then sitting out game 2. Quebec played the game without a sub.

So, with that said, these are Inglewood's results:

Goals: 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 (1-time leader, 4 top-2, 13 top-5, 29 top-10)
Assists: 1 1 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 (2-time leader, 2 top-2, 8 top-5, 20 top-10)
Points: 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 (1-time leader, 2 top-2, 10 top-5, 23 top-10)

As you can see, Regina's clutch scoring is overwhelming compared to that of Inglewood. 18 times, Regina's forwards have led the playoffs in goals, assists, or points, and have been top-2 29 times. Inglewood's guys have led the league in one category 4 times, and have been top-2 just 8 times.

18-4? 29-8? That's 4 1/2 and 3 1/2 times as often!

Inglewood bridges the gap by the end of the exercise, pulling even in the top-10 totals and pulling ahead on assists, mainly thanks to a string of 6ths-9ths from Metz, Klukay, and Mosdell. You want top-level, true clutch scoring? It's all on Regina's roster.

Who on Regina has led the playoffs in goals? Lafleur, Ullman, Phillips, Schmautz. (Watson and Adams have also been runner-up)
Who on Inglewood has led the playoffs in goals? Denneny. (Savard and Smith have been runner-up)

Who on Regina has led the playoffs in assists? Lafleur, Ullman, Joliat. (Sittler has also been runner-up)
Who on Inglewood has led the playoffs in assists? Denneny, Heatley. (no runners-up)

Who on Regina has led the playoffs in points? Lafleur, Ullman, Phillips. (Adams and Sittler have also been runner-up)
Who on Inglewood has led the playoffs in points? Heatley. (Denneny was a runner-up)

Regina just plain has a lot more options. Five players on three lines have led the playoffs in goals, assists, or points. Only two Inglewood Jacks have done so. Eight Regina pats have placed top-2, including the whole 4th line. Only four Inglewood Jacks have done so.

Even more concerning - the only two players on Inglewood to finish in the top-2 in playoff assists, ever - Cy Denneny and Dany Heatley - are two players not even known for passing first, and who certainly aren't being relied on as the passers on their respective lines.

*One player disadvantaged by this is the outstanding Sergei Makarov. He would have had a few good playoffs had he played in the NHL in the 1980s. However, if you look at teh records of star players of his caliber who weren't on the Isles or Oilers, something in the neighbourhood of "3-4 top-10s including 1-2 top-5s is likely what he'd be looking at, which, overall, would be insigificant to the results of the team comparison.

 

[seventieslord]

In Conclusion:

- Regina's got the major goaltending edge. Just how far do you think Lumley/Rayner can carry this team? No further than this, I contend. Despite having a career .500 record, Lumley is a dismal 29-47 in the playoffs.

- Regina's got the major coaching edge. Gorman lifted his teams to victories that they might not have otherwise attained. Sinden coached for a very short time, accomplished very little, and there is evidence to suggest that the Bruins were a turn key operation anyway. What did Sinden really ever do?

- Although Savard and Makarov make a slick combination, the malcontent Heatley on their left side does nothing for them. This line will be good with the puck, but when will they have it? They have to win faceoffs against Ullman and Sittler and Luce, or win them in the corner from Joliat, Ramsay, Gare, Ullman, Watson, and others. I don't see them doing it. This line simply can't be this effective, this deep in the playoffs.

- Regina has a massive edge on Inglewood in elite-level playoff scoring. They simply have more players who have proven more often, that they can get the job done when the cup is on the line. The numbers are there for all to see. Leading the league, finishing top-2, finishing top-5, goals, assists, points, you name it - we have the edge.

- Our esteemed opponent has not shown up for any debate in this series. Apparently they feel they can walk away with victory with little effort. This does not appear to be due to a lack of time: they have about 50 posts on this board since this series started. Inglewood did not show up in the last series either, and lucked out with a quick and easy victory against a motivated opponent. Will lightning strike twice? Don't count on it.