I guess I lied. But I will regret this when I am tired tomorrow.
Metro Prystai obviously had to be strong defensively if he's going to play centre on a checking line. You need the centre on your checking line to be strong defensively. If he isn't, he won't last five games in that role. He'll be dispatched in favour of someone who's better.
Let me get this straight: You are saying he is good defensively because he is playing on your checking line? Wow. Just because you throw a guy into a third line role doesn't make him good defensively. Or just because a guy played on a third line in his career doesn't make him good defensively at an ATD level. I'm with jarek; show some quotes. This just suggests to me there is none.
I don't think Blake and Fleury are the puck-winners you need. Roberts is a puck-winner. Sutter's a puck-winner. When we had Fleury last draft, we used Kevin Stevens to be the guy to win the battles. And Fleury isn't the guy you're going to want for front-of-the-net battles.
Fleury I'll touch on tomorrow. Here's Blake:
..his competitive spirit and sheer tenacity making him one of the NHL’s most feared forwards. He was quick and skilled but also willing to play the game as gritty as he had to in order to emerge victorious.- ourhistory.canadiens.com
Hall's Blackhawks had the potential to win multiple Cups. They won it in 61. They lost to great Toronto and Montreal teams in 62 and 65, respectively, in the Stanley Cup final. In 63, he had a 4.17 GAA. In 64, it was 3.24. In 66, he had a 3.80. Chicago had a team that could have won multiple Stanley Cups. Hall isn't the only reason the Hawks failed year after year following the Cup triumph in 71, but he was a factor several times.
And I showed in the previous thread (which I will bring in here, if necessary) team play can have a profound effect on GAA; whether facing a high-powered Canadiens dynasty or a team 8 points below you.
And while he was great in 68, keep in mind the only reason he had a shot at the Conn Smythe was the league's screwball division set-up that saw the expansion teams in one division, and the established teams in the other. If not for that, Hall doesn't get a sniff of the final, or the Conn Smythe.
Perhaps not, but are you really going to discredit it because of how the league did things? Wasn't Hall's fault. He got the opportunity, and he shined in it.
Smith played behind a great team. But he was a big reason that the Islanders were a dynasty. He won a Smythe in 83. He was fantastic the other three years. In the playoffs, the gap between Hall and Smith shrinks considerably.
Of course the gap between them in the regular season is so huge that the gap between the two is still quite a fair margin. Frankly I think the goaltending was likely closer in my last round matchup.
Your defence has good toughness and mobility. Your team speed is probably the best in the draft. Renfrew might be the only one in your class. But your team toughness isn't there. Your forwards are probably the least physical forwards remaining in the draft. We aren't quite as fast, but we're close. We're every bit as smart. Our team toughness is much more significant.
Of course you can win through skill, as I believe the Red Wings of modern times show. I think I've sprinkled some decent toughness throughout the lineup.
And fatigue is a factor for Cairo. Cairo just came off a grueling seven-game series against a punishing team that's going to lean on you from the first shift of the game to the last. Syracuse was one of the toughest teams in the draft. Especially on the blue line. It means Cairo's guys were going to be hit hard every game. It's very taxing. And now Cairo has to play against a team that isn't as vicious as Syracuse, but has lots of guys who hit, hit hard, and finish their checks.
And as I said, the fact your guys had more rest could make them a bit more sluggish coming out of the gate. I don't have low-energy guys, and I have numerous guys who know how to get through a gruelling concern. It's a small concern, if a concern, that is not going to play much of a factor, I think.
Just as an aside, these kind of posts have never meant anything for me. Hockey's a team sport. Personel is nowhere near as important as getting the five guys on the ice to play as one, and, as odd as it sounds, it's about getting the 18 skaters and the goalie for that night to play as one. It's about getting the guys to play with each other, and play for each other. I've never seen a team with the best personel win because they had the best personel. They win because that personel plays together, plays as a cohesive and collective unit. Your post showed nothing of that.
Which is why I try to evaluate every part of the team in detail. Of course, I can't do detailed analysis for a whole team all at once without spending hours on end on the computer, more time than I have. I've got other things to do. These debates are much about education I feel, and detailedb reakdowns do well in that regard. They also get to the route of things, instead of just playing blanket statements that really aren't likely to show the whole picture.
And all I see is stats. Nothing on how each guy played the game. That's what ultimately makes the difference in how guys are going to mesh. You never win based on how many top 10s a guy has. You win based on how guys play together, how each guy handles their role, and how they deal with different match-ups. Your post showed nothing of that.
Most guys know how Selanne and Taylor played; tremendous speed and skill. Taylor, as evident by stats, is an awesome playmaker and good goalscorer. Selanne, as evident by stats, is an awesome goalscorer and good playmaker. But hey, ask and you shall recieve:
Taylor-
His dynamic rushes and memorable scoring feats made him one of hockey's first superstars. He was one of the few players in the history of the game capable of skating backwards as fast as many could forwards.
"I understand that this boy, was nicknamed 'Tornado' when he played in Manitoba. And I further understand that when he moved into the International League they called him 'Whirlwind.' But starting today, based on his performance last night, I am re-christening him 'Cyclone'." - Malcolm Bryce
Selanne-
When he broke into the league, he was the machine gun goal scorer and skater so fast he was nicknamed the Finnish Flash.- Joe Pelletier
Blake, as evident by stats, is a pretty balanced offensive player. But here's the key quote on how Blake played if you want it:
.
.his competitive spirit and sheer tenacity making him one of the NHL’s most feared forwards. He was quick and skilled but also willing to play the game as gritty as he had to in order to emerge victorious.- ourhistory.canadiens.com
Hard-nosed and dedicated, he was an important cog in the Canadiens’ teams of the late 1930s and early 1940s-ourhistory.canadiens.com
Of how awesome he was in the playoffs:
That year he led all post-season scorers with seven goals and 18 points. His record for that playoffs of two points per game went untouched until Wayne Gretzky took over the NHL record book in the 1980s.
Blake, a competive, viscious and often profane player who grew up idolizing Howie Morenz, exploded with the Habs. -Joe Pelletier
And his famed ""If the day ever comes when I can swallow defeat, I'll quit"
I like top 10s. But there are a lot of things that go into top 10s, and they are far from a be-all and end-all in evaluations. A player's ability is big. But so is the talent around him. And the system he's in. In the case of post-expansion players, the teams in his division are a factor. Sports are cyclical. Hockey people are looking for different things at different times. A top 10 in 1983 is more impressive to me than a top 10 in 2003 because of the reality of what hockey people are looking for.
Of course they are far from the end of it all; I try to note intangibles if particularly present as well.
I don't understand what you are saying there- "What hockey people are looking for"? I understand different competition, but I am unsure fo what you mean there, unless people looked at different things for assists.
For the record, I think Selanne's better than Middleton in the regular season; playoffs are another matter, and the Olympics/World Championships doesn't do it for me, there is a world of difference between the tournaments that have a best-of-one on big ice, and the best-of-seven on regulation ice. And for the role we wanted from our first line RW, I love Middleton's speed, puck skills and two-way game. (The latter is something that Selanne doesn't bring). I think Blake is a better player than Roberts, no doubt of that although you're asking too much of Blake to be a puck-winner. And I like Roberts for the puck-winning, crash the net, goal-scoring role more than Blake.
Is there really? Fact is, he showed that he could thrive, and could produce in a high-pressure environment with tough competition. Is that not what the playoffs are about?
I don't think too much of Blake to do that. But we're both bias in that regard, aren't we? You sacrificed on offense, HUGE to put Roberts on your first line. I don't think Roberts belongs on a first line, while Blake is one of the best LW's you can get.
If we had Blake as a first line LW to play with Bentley, we'd be thrilled. But we'd have set a gritty, tough, goal-scoring RW as a top priority, someone like an Iginla.
Of course Middleton isn't Iginla; because Iginla could score at an elite level with more consistently.
I believe Bentley is better than Taylor. And I'm a big Taylor fan. But Bentley has two Art Ross Trophies, three rings and an amazing playoff record for the late 40s/early 50s.
Never got the impression from your apprent dislike of split-league guys.
Taylor was arguably the best player of his era, and is certainly top-2 in that regard, He led the PCHA in points 5 times (which I'll take over Bentley's two art ross), led it in goals three times, and is the all-time PCHA points leader with almost half the games played as the #2 guy. At 20 points in 11 games (and a quote:
Taylor led all PCHA goal scorers in 1918 and 1919 with 32 and 23 goals respectively. Even though the Toronto Arenas defeated Vancouver in the 1918 Stanley Cup championship, Taylor proved to be the most revered performer in the match-up. He finished ahead of all playoff scorers with nine goals in seven games.
)
, he also has an exccelnt playoff record. Bentley just wasn't as dominant as Taylor. Taylor also, if I am not mistaken, has two cups to his credit as well as another final, as shown in the quote, where he dominated.
The goalies are a wash, with a slight nod to Hall if anything.
I liked most of your post, but this stuck out.
I am sorry, but are we seriously going to call a guy most don't doubt as top-6 all-time versus a guy who no one in their right mind would place top-10 as a wash? An 11 team all-star vs a 1 team all-star? Again, Hall obviously has two great runs, and I did a huge research just to show how teams could have a pronounced effect on Hall's less than adequate GAA playoffs.. There are only a few series where Hall supposedly remains quetionable. I don't know if I have the time to go through the articles and champion Hall in those series, but I will try. But even so, on what we know, I think Hall has a fair edge.
As for Walker thing, although it is true he doesn't have much in the way of good RW's, the good thing about that is anytime Walker is on the ice he likely renders the opposing RW useless. Taking out 1/3 of a scoring like could be a big difference, especially when the other winger on his top line is just dreadful offensively on a scoring line.
Second units I am going to take a look at closely tomorrow; we'll see how much better it really is.
How are Laprade and Prystai going to handle their assignments is the biggest question for me. Cyclone Taylor vs. Max Bentley. This one is going to be a doozy.
Of course Taylor won't have to be a one man show like Bentley will likely have to be when the third lines are matchup. But Laprade, based on what I know, is the better defensive player than Prystai (unless GBC has some excellent quotes on Prystai's defensive ability), and Taylor the better offensive player.
