ATD 12 Bob Cole Quater-Finals: 3 Regina Pats vs. 6 New York Golden Blades

[Hedberg]

3

GMs: seventieslord & jareklajkosz
Coach: Anatoly Tarasov

Gord Roberts - Jean Ratelle - Boris Mikhailov
Dick Duff - Norm Ullman - Bernie Morris
Craig Ramsay - Don McKenney - Tony Leswick
Ernie Russell - Eric Staal - Eddie Oatman
Peter McNab - Boris Mayorov

Paul Coffey - Hap Day
Lester Patrick - Robert Svehla
Frank Patrick - James Patrick
Wade Redden

Jacques Plante
Riley Hern

Callups:
F: Fred Scanlan, Pierre Mondou, Fred Whitcroft
D: Jack Ruttan, Kimmo Timonen
G: Pete Peeters

vs.

4

GM: Bobby Ryan Getzlaf
Coach: Ken Hitchcock

John Tonelli - Henri Richard (C) - Didier Pitre
Glenn Anderson - Peter Stastny - Joe Mullen
Marty Pavelich (A) - Rick MacLeish - Eric Nesterenko
Paul Henderson - Neal Broten - Rick Vaive
Rick Nash - Bobby Carpenter

Viacheslav Fetisov (A) - Carl Brewer
Barclay Plager - Scott Niedermayer (A)
Reijo Ruotsalainen - Joe Watson
Billy Coutu

Chuck Rayner
Roberto Luongo

Powerplay 1: Anderson-Stastny-Pitre-Fetisov-Niedermayer
Powerplay 2: Tonelli-Richard-Mullen-Ruotsalainen-Brewer

Penalty Kill 1: Richard-Pavelich-Fetisov-Brewer
Penalty Kill 2: MacLeish-Nesterenko-Niedermayer-Plager
Penalty Kill 3: Broten-Henderson-Fetisov-Brewer

Callups:
F: Alexei Kovalev, Craig Janney, Rob Niedermayer
D: Dave Babych, Mattias Norstrom
G: Felix Potvin


​

Click to read more...

 

[jarek]

By the way, here are the links to our bio posts:

Regina Pats

GM: seventiesjareklordlajkosz
Coach: Anatoly Tarasov

Gord Roberts - Jean Ratelle - Boris Mikhailov
Dick Duff - Norm Ullman - Bernie Morris
Craig Ramsay - Don McKenney - Tony Leswick
Ernie Russell - Eric Staal - Eddie Oatman

Paul Coffey - Hap Day
Lester Patrick - Robert Svehla
Frank Patrick - James Patrick

Jacques Plante
Riley Hern

Spares on roster:

Peter McNab (F)
Wade Redden (D)
Boris Mayorov (RW)

Spares for recall:

Fred Scanlan (LW) - Pierre Mondou (C/LW) - Fredrick Whitcroft (F/D)
Jack Ruttan (D) - Kimmo Timonen (D)
Pete Peeters (G)
​

Just a quick analysis here:

Regina has 3 very major advantages over New York here:

Tarasov over Hitchcock. Hitchcock is a trap coach and Tarasov emphasized strong skating and passing skills, which is the strategy that, when executed properly (and I think our team is more than capable of doing so), will destroy the trap. I don't think New York's team defense is solid enough throughout to stop this.

Checking line: Gord Roberts and Mikhailov are going to send Pavelich and Nesterenko on some rough rides throughout the series with their toughness should New York decide to match their third against our first. Our third, however, will have an easier time checking New York's first line. The key really will be shutting down Pitre's blast, and with Leswick on him, it shouldn't be a problem at all, considering Leswick is the man who was usually checking Richard and Howe. With our second line also being very good defensively, I don't see New York getting too many scoring opportunities. And then there's the goaltending..

Plante vs. Rayner: This really is lights out Plante. New York's team defense, as previously stated, isn't terribly good when compared to Regina, so Regina will get more scoring opportunities to be sure. Each line can produce offensively as well. With Regina's blanket defense througout the lineup in front of the best goalie to have ever played, New York will be scoring on very few of the chances they do get.

This is simply a question of a team being stronger defensively than the other team is offensively, and having superior goaltending and coaching. Regina's chances look good in this matchup.

 

[overpass]

Checking line: Gord Roberts and Mikhailov are going to send Pavelich and Nesterenko on some rough rides throughout the series with their toughness should New York decide to match their third against our first. Our third, however, will have an easier time checking New York's first line. The key really will be shutting down Pitre's blast, and with Leswick on him, it shouldn't be a problem at all, considering Leswick is the man who was usually checking Richard and Howe. With our second line also being very good defensively, I don't see New York getting too many scoring opportunities. And then there's the goaltending.

My impression was that New York was going to go power on power...that's always been Hitchcock's preference, and their first line is built for it. I think your analysis here is somewhat misplaced, although I'm sure their third will see your first at times.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Just a quick analysis here:

Regina has 3 very major advantages over New York here:

Tarasov over Hitchcock. Hitchcock is a trap coach and Tarasov emphasized strong skating and passing skills, which is the strategy that, when executed properly (and I think our team is more than capable of doing so), will destroy the trap. I don't think New York's team defense is solid enough throughout to stop this.

The one thing I love about my team, as a whole, is the mobility, so I don't think they will have any problem defending Tarasov's attack. Coaching as a whole is hardly a disadvantage for me, but rather one for you. Not only do I not have to fear Hitchcock pushing my team too far just yet and alienating them, but while he is a bit of a trap coach, his teams can score. How well can Tarasov's teams defend, though? Considering the mobility and all-around offensive talent of my team, "the best defense is a good offense" isn't going to cut it.

Checking line: Gord Roberts and Mikhailov are going to send Pavelich and Nesterenko on some rough rides throughout the series with their toughness should New York decide to match their third against our first. Our third, however, will have an easier time checking New York's first line. The key really will be shutting down Pitre's blast, and with Leswick on him, it shouldn't be a problem at all, considering Leswick is the man who was usually checking Richard and Howe. With our second line also being very good defensively, I don't see New York getting too many scoring opportunities. And then there's the goaltending..

This entire post is just lunacy, and that bolded part really proves that. Pavelich was renowned for his ability to shadow Richard, yet Mikhailov and Roberts are going to send him and Nesterenko on some rough rides, while Leswick, who also checked Richard before he joined the Wings, will have a cake-walk checking Pitre? Yeah, ok. It'll be interesting to see if Leswick can handle Pitre's blazing speed as well. As for stopping my first line, go right ahead. The Stastny line will simply burn you all night if you leave them unchecked. And if you check the Stastny line, then the Richard line will burn you. This is a big advantage for me, that you only have one line that can really check, while I have two with equally great firepower.

Plante vs. Rayner: This really is lights out Plante. New York's team defense, as previously stated, isn't terribly good when compared to Regina, so Regina will get more scoring opportunities to be sure. Each line can produce offensively as well. With Regina's blanket defense througout the lineup in front of the best goalie to have ever played, New York will be scoring on very few of the chances they do get.

This is simply a question of a team being stronger defensively than the other team is offensively, and having superior goaltending and coaching. Regina's chances look good in this matchup.

The bolded part is simply false. Not only do I think my defense is just fine, even before Hitchcock, but what does Regina have past that checking line? Hap Day's nice, but he doesn't compare to Fetisov or Brewer defensively, and probably Niedermayer as well(one of the more underrated guys defensively in this thing). My team relies on nothing, we don't need Hitchcock's system. Regina, on the other hand, needs to execute Tarasov's system to perfection to be even remotely successful defensively.

Although I shouldn't be surprised, because you overrate your team a lot, I completely disagree with your assessment. You have the better goaltending, but I feel my coaching is superior, and I think my team defense and offense as a whole are superior. More to come later, I guess.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I do think the Stastny line is just a bit better offensively than the Richard line.

 

[jarek]

FFS. I had a huge post put together and I lost it. &&*&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[seventieslord]

Quick assessment: I like New York; I think they are better than a sixth-place team. But Regina is much better than a third-place team and the better players throughout the lineup will get us through in less than seven.

The one thing I love about my team, as a whole, is the mobility, so I don't think they will have any problem defending Tarasov's attack. Coaching as a whole is hardly a disadvantage for me, but rather one for you. Not only do I not have to fear Hitchcock pushing my team too far just yet and alienating them, but while he is a bit of a trap coach, his teams can score. How well can Tarasov's teams defend, though? Considering the mobility and all-around offensive talent of my team, "the best defense is a good offense" isn't going to cut it.

I don't see a mobility issue with your team, or a glaring issue with its offensive talent, but there is no advantage there for you because the same thing can be said for Regina. Especially with the bluelines taken into account.

Coaching is far from a disadvantage for Regina. Tarasov wasn't a problem before; why would he be a problem now? A 3rd-place finish tells me his system is working just fine. He's not going to suddenly alienate players in the playoffs.

Hitchcock's not an offensive coach. He's a defensive coach. He likes to trap. With the exception of Columbus, he's always coached big budget teams packed with star forwards in the top-6; much more than their share compared to the rest of the league. I would say that their offense dropped compared to what it would have been with another coach. Yes, the overall results were very good, and that is why Hitchcock is a bonafide ATD coach. But to say "his teams can score" without better qualifying it, is slightly misleading.

How well can Tarasov's teams defend? Well, they won about 86% of their games so they must have defended pretty well. No, I don't expect that win% to carry over here. Tarasov wanted every player to be good at multiple things and not one-dimensional. We put together that team. When Tarasov's teams lost, in retrospect he saw their goaltending as a cause - he didn't feel his guys were at the level of Canada's Seth Martin. From that it sounds like his team played as good defense in front of its goalies as it could have. Regardless of what you think about his ability to coach a team to play defense, he can't just magically turn great two-way players like Mikhailov, Ullman, Duff, and the whole checking line into inept Pavel Bures in their own zone.

This entire post is just lunacy, and that bolded part really proves that. Pavelich was renowned for his ability to shadow Richard, yet Mikhailov and Roberts are going to send him and Nesterenko on some rough rides, while Leswick, who also checked Richard before he joined the Wings, will have a cake-walk checking Pitre? Yeah, ok. It'll be interesting to see if Leswick can handle Pitre's blazing speed as well. As for stopping my first line, go right ahead. The Stastny line will simply burn you all night if you leave them unchecked. And if you check the Stastny line, then the Richard line will burn you. This is a big advantage for me, that you only have one line that can really check, while I have two with equally great firepower.

A line with Duff and Ullman can't check? OK, sure.

You are absolutely right that Pavelich was an excellent shadow on Richard. No argument there. Nesterenko is a fast and tough player too. If you were to match your third line against our first, I think we'd see some great battles. On the same note, Ramsay will frustrate Pitre, and Leswick will have little trouble with Tonelli, who isn't bound to be much of an offensive factor anyway - once top-20 in goals, twice in assists (but yes, I understand he is there as a puckwinner). Much like mobility and offense, you have pointed out that you have it, but you haven't shown that you'll outdo us.

The bolded part is simply false. Not only do I think my defense is just fine, even before Hitchcock, but what does Regina have past that checking line? Hap Day's nice, but he doesn't compare to Fetisov or Brewer defensively, and probably Niedermayer as well(one of the more underrated guys defensively in this thing). My team relies on nothing, we don't need Hitchcock's system. Regina, on the other hand, needs to execute Tarasov's system to perfection to be even remotely successful defensively.

The bolded part may be an exaggeration on my co-GM's part. You could very well get as many scoring chances as we do. You just won't score on as many of them. I refer you to Plante vs. Rayner. And with the exception of Anderson, (how much LW did he play, exactly?) I don't see anyone with a greater propensity to score at crucial moments like Regina has with Mikhailov, Morris, and especially Duff.

Fetisov is a top-10 defenseman and better than Day in every way. I'm not ashamed to say that. Brewer is not better than Day defensively. Defense was Day's bread and butter. Brewer's is mobility. Day was possibly the best defensive defenseman of his time; where would you rank Brewer in his time?

Although I shouldn't be surprised, because you overrate your team a lot, I completely disagree with your assessment. You have the better goaltending, but I feel my coaching is superior, and I think my team defense and offense as a whole are superior. More to come later, I guess.

To convince the voters that your offense is superior is to rely on the gaudy 1980s totals that a few of them put up. It's not like they're not legitimate top-6 forwards, but it's not hard at all to show how Morris is superior to Mullen, Duff was just the Glenn Anderson of his time, Pitre and Roberts (the triggermen of the first lines) are very similar, and as a glue guy/auxiliary offensive star, Mikhailov is far superior to Tonelli.

Defensively, you have very good first and second pairings. I would give them the minor edge over both of ours; (on the first because Fetisov is a couple notches up on the all-time list than Coffey, on the second because Niedermayer and Plager are both a nut hair better than Patrick and Svehla) however, we have a very large advantage on the 3rd pairing, which works well for Tarasov, who likes to roll 4 lines.

You wanna talk 4th lines? I'd love to, but I'm not sure you would.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Quick assessment: I like New York; I think they are better than a sixth-place team. But Regina is much better than a third-place team and the better players throughout the lineup will get us through in less than seven.

I completely disagree. I think Regina is no better than a 3rd place team, and had you guys been picked to finish lower I wouldn't have been surprised.

I don't see a mobility issue with your team, or a glaring issue with its offensive talent, but there is no advantage there for you because the same thing can be said for Regina. Especially with the bluelines taken into account.

Coaching is far from a disadvantage for Regina. Tarasov wasn't a problem before; why would he be a problem now? A 3rd-place finish tells me his system is working just fine. He's not going to suddenly alienate players in the playoffs.

Hitchcock's not an offensive coach. He's a defensive coach. He likes to trap. With the exception of Columbus, he's always coached big budget teams packed with star forwards in the top-6; much more than their share compared to the rest of the league. I would say that their offense dropped compared to what it would have been with another coach. Yes, the overall results were very good, and that is why Hitchcock is a bonafide ATD coach. But to say "his teams can score" without better qualifying it, is slightly misleading.

How well can Tarasov's teams defend? Well, they won about 86% of their games so they must have defended pretty well. No, I don't expect that win% to carry over here. Tarasov wanted every player to be good at multiple things and not one-dimensional. We put together that team. When Tarasov's teams lost, in retrospect he saw their goaltending as a cause - he didn't feel his guys were at the level of Canada's Seth Martin. From that it sounds like his team played as good defense in front of its goalies as it could have. Regardless of what you think about his ability to coach a team to play defense, he can't just magically turn great two-way players like Mikhailov, Ullman, Duff, and the whole checking line into inept Pavel Bures in their own zone.

I don't get what you're saying about Hitchcock. I didn't try and say that he's some sort of offensive coach to a degree or anything, but that his teams can score. Yes he had a nice amount of talent in Dallas and Philadelphia, but I'd say I do here as well. All I'm saying is let's not act like Hitchcock is going to completely restrict guys like Stastny and Richard, they will get their chances.

As for Tarasov, yes, he could lose his team right now. It's not uncommon for a coach to have some level of success in the regular season and lose his team come playoff time, and I would not be surprised to see that happen here. And you did nothing to answer my question. All you did was state how his teams dominated weak competition. There is nothing to suggest that his teams were good defensively. No, his system won't change the play of your better two-way guys, but I see your top-6 defensemen as overall defensively weak, and there is nothing t suggest that Tarasov will help that.

A line with Duff and Ullman can't check? OK, sure.

You are absolutely right that Pavelich was an excellent shadow on Richard. No argument there. Nesterenko is a fast and tough player too. If you were to match your third line against our first, I think we'd see some great battles. On the same note, Ramsay will frustrate Pitre, and Leswick will have little trouble with Tonelli, who isn't bound to be much of an offensive factor anyway - once top-20 in goals, twice in assists (but yes, I understand he is there as a puckwinner). Much like mobility and offense, you have pointed out that you have it, but you haven't shown that you'll outdo us.

I again encourage you to use the Ullman line to try and check one of my lines. Sure, they can check, but I definitely think Stastny or Richard can burn one of them with ease, and better yet, it takes the puck away from one or your better offensive units. Fine by me.

The bolded part may be an exaggeration on my co-GM's part. You could very well get as many scoring chances as we do. You just won't score on as many of them. I refer you to Plante vs. Rayner. And with the exception of Anderson, (how much LW did he play, exactly?) I don't see anyone with a greater propensity to score at crucial moments like Regina has with Mikhailov, Morris, and especially Duff.

Fetisov is a top-10 defenseman and better than Day in every way. I'm not ashamed to say that. Brewer is not better than Day defensively. Defense was Day's bread and butter. Brewer's is mobility. Day was possibly the best defensive defenseman of his time; where would you rank Brewer in his time?

You're kidding, right? Guys like Richard, Tonelli, Anderson, Mullen, and MacLeish are very well known for their clutch abilities. That Henderson guy scored a big goal or two during his days as well, I think. Those three on your team are nice, but mine are also quite good. In fact, my team is chock full of playoff performers and winners.

To convince the voters that your offense is superior is to rely on the gaudy 1980s totals that a few of them put up. It's not like they're not legitimate top-6 forwards, but it's not hard at all to show how Morris is superior to Mullen, Duff was just the Glenn Anderson of his time, Pitre and Roberts (the triggermen of the first lines) are very similar, and as a glue guy/auxiliary offensive star, Mikhailov is far superior to Tonelli.

Defensively, you have very good first and second pairings. I would give them the minor edge over both of ours; (on the first because Fetisov is a couple notches up on the all-time list than Coffey, on the second because Niedermayer and Plager are both a nut hair better than Patrick and Svehla) however, we have a very large advantage on the 3rd pairing, which works well for Tarasov, who likes to roll 4 lines.

You wanna talk 4th lines? I'd love to, but I'm not sure you would.

Yes, we all must believe that the PCHA totals are accurate of talent levels, yet the 80s are horrible. Yes, a lot of my guys' totals may be inflated, but yours are the same, and it doesn't erase what those guys accomplished. Morris over Mullen, I could maybe buy that. But Duff being the Anderson of his time? That's a joke, right? Duff is a nice clutch scorer and checker, but Anderson is a very talented offensive player who is one of the greatest playoff performers ever. Duff does not compare. Also nice of you, when talking about my offense, to ignore my centermen, who are probably the two best offensive players on either team. But that was to be expected. Overall, I'd say I have a very nice edge offensively.

Defensively my edge is greater. Like you said, I have an advantage on the first pairing, and while it's not as large as you credit yourself, I'd say you have an edge on the third pairing. However, the second pairing is where I flat out have a massive edge. Lester Patrick is nice, but Robert Svehla belongs nowhere near a second pairing. I know you like the guy, but for you to bash Kaberle and praise Svehla in this thing is lunacy. Svehla was little more than an iron-man who was decent offensively and defensively, and at his best was maybe barely a #1 guy. In all honesty, I'd take Mattias Norstrom, who's one of my call-ups, over him, and considering how they were contemporaries, and Norstrom was flat-out better, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that at all. We are going to eat him alive, and it's not going to be pretty for Regina. Oh, right, comparing second pairings. Well, while yours features Patrick and the worst defenseman of the series, mine features one of hockey's greatest winners ever and a future HHOFer. If you want to talk about big advantages, this is a massive one. Calling them a nut hair better is absolutely ridiculous.

As for fourth lines, I also think this is a massive edge. Mine can defend, provide energy and score. Yours can score a bit, I guess, but there's nothing special about it at all. I do really like Oatman, but he's no Rick Vaive, and Eric Staal is a below average fourth liner in every way. Russell is nice, too, but so is Henderson. I'd say I have a nice edge with the fourth units.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Wouldn't mind seeing more stat-on-stat, quote comparisons to back up some claims both teams are making.

The matchup boils down, to me, as do the Golden Blades have the edge on skaters to make up that gigantic difference in goaltending? We'll see.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Why is Eric Staal a below average fourth liner in every way? At this stage of his career, I think he's a capable fourth liner. He's probably one of the best goal-scoring fourth line centres in the draft. He's big, he has excellent hockey sense, he gets involved physically, he's very consistent (except for this season) and he's responsible defensively. Out of the three outstanding Class of 2003 centres (Staal, Getzlaf and Richards), I think he's the least suited to fourth line duty based on what he brings to the table: ot as good defensively or as physical as Richards, not as physical as Getzlaf. (And that's why he's maybe an outside-looking-in guy for Team Canada while Getzlaf and Richards are locks). But Staal's better offensively than Richards, and depending on what you're looking for, he may or may not be better offensively than Getzlaf. (Staal's the better goal scorer, Getzlaf's the better playmaker, although Staal's assist totals would soar if he was asked to concentrate on playmaking like Getzlaf).

Is Staal as good as Broten? Depends what you're looking for. If you want the smart two-way guy who makes plays and has the lengthy, sterling career record, go for Broten. If you want the big, all-round centre who can score goals, go with Staal. If I had a choice for our team, I would have gone with Staal, because we needed size up the middle. But based on what I've seen since the lockout, Staal's not going to have any problems.

There were two reasons I wanted to avoid New York: their top centre (Richard) and their top defensive pairing (Fetisov and Brewer). Richard's absolutely brilliant. I don't think he gets enough credit around here for just how smart he really was on the ice. He can match-up effectively against anyone in the draft. That top pairing is menacing. They're quick. They're tough. They're highly skilled. They can play a lot of minutes against the opposition's top line. They can make a difference offensively, too. Lidstrom-Clapper is a great pairing. So is Chelios-Pronovost. But this tandem, Fetisov-Brewer, will have their games translate to this level so well.

I do believe that New York's second line is better offensively than their first line. That's why it's such a weird set-up. The first line is going to get goals, but they're also strong defensively. The second line will score more often, but they're probably not going to see much ice time against the opposition's best. Mullen doesn't get enough credit around here. He has a great nose for the net, and he just knows how to score goals.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Why is Eric Staal a below average fourth liner in every way? At this stage of his career, I think he's a capable fourth liner. He's probably one of the best goal-scoring fourth line centres in the draft. He's big, he has excellent hockey sense, he gets involved physically, he's very consistent (except for this season) and he's responsible defensively. Out of the three outstanding Class of 2003 centres (Staal, Getzlaf and Richards), I think he's the least suited to fourth line duty based on what he brings to the table: ot as good defensively or as physical as Richards, not as physical as Getzlaf. (And that's why he's maybe an outside-looking-in guy for Team Canada while Getzlaf and Richards are locks). But Staal's better offensively than Richards, and depending on what you're looking for, he may or may not be better offensively than Getzlaf. (Staal's the better goal scorer, Getzlaf's the better playmaker, although Staal's assist totals would soar if he was asked to concentrate on playmaking like Getzlaf).

Is Staal as good as Broten? Depends what you're looking for. If you want the smart two-way guy who makes plays and has the lengthy, sterling career record, go for Broten. If you want the big, all-round centre who can score goals, go with Staal. If I had a choice for our team, I would have gone with Staal, because we needed size up the middle. But based on what I've seen since the lockout, Staal's not going to have any problems.

There were two reasons I wanted to avoid New York: their top centre (Richard) and their top defensive pairing (Fetisov and Brewer). Richard's absolutely brilliant. I don't think he gets enough credit around here for just how smart he really was on the ice. He can match-up effectively against anyone in the draft. That top pairing is menacing. They're quick. They're tough. They're highly skilled. They can play a lot of minutes against the opposition's top line. They can make a difference offensively, too. Lidstrom-Clapper is a great pairing. So is Chelios-Pronovost. But this tandem, Fetisov-Brewer, will have their games translate to this level so well.

I do believe that New York's second line is better offensively than their first line. That's why it's such a weird set-up. The first line is going to get goals, but they're also strong defensively. The second line will score more often, but they're probably not going to see much ice time against the opposition's best. Mullen doesn't get enough credit around here. He has a great nose for the net, and he just knows how to score goals.

My comments towards Staal are mainly because he has one season of greatness and little else. He's done a good job scoring goals, although he has just 1 top-5 and another top-10, but hasn't even put up a point-per-game in a fairly offensive era. Staal will be a great ATDer, but he's a guy who relies solely on peak value, and he hasn't hit his peak yet. For the record I think Getzlaf, my favorite player currently, is below-average in an ATD as well, although he probably has a lead on Staal. I guess a lot of that also comes from the comparison to Rick Nash, which I think is close, and I don't consider Nash to be anything more than a below-average fourth liner at best.

EDIT-Also, that comment about Getzlaf vs. Staal in terms of offense, while Staal's assist totals may go up should he concentrate on playmaking, Getzlaf's goal totals would explode if he simply shot the puck more. His shot is incredible, he just never uses it.

 

[seventieslord]

We've got a Saskatchewan party going on!

I completely disagree. I think Regina is no better than a 3rd place team, and had you guys been picked to finish lower I wouldn't have been surprised.

My opponent doesn't think my team is very good... I'm so hurt

I don't get what you're saying about Hitchcock. I didn't try and say that he's some sort of offensive coach to a degree or anything, but that his teams can score. Yes he had a nice amount of talent in Dallas and Philadelphia, but I'd say I do here as well. All I'm saying is let's not act like Hitchcock is going to completely restrict guys like Stastny and Richard, they will get their chances.

If that's not what you're trying to claim, fine. perhaps I misunderstood you. But about the bolded: Everyone is in a better situation than they were in real life, in absolute terms. I'm talking relatively, obviously. Hitchcock had a top-5 group of forwards for most of the 1997-2004 period. Although your forward group is ok, it's not top-5 in this "league".

As for Tarasov, yes, he could lose his team right now. It's not uncommon for a coach to have some level of success in the regular season and lose his team come playoff time, and I would not be surprised to see that happen here. And you did nothing to answer my question. All you did was state how his teams dominated weak competition. There is nothing to suggest that his teams were good defensively. No, his system won't change the play of your better two-way guys, but I see your top-6 defensemen as overall defensively weak, and there is nothing t suggest that Tarasov will help that.

Why, because we have Coffey? What else can you tell me about our blueline that makes them defensively weak? I'm curious.

If we finished 3rd, then the team has bought into Tarasov's system and there's nothing that suggests he will lose them now. Tarasov's teams should get better as the season goes on, and there would no doubt be a "feeling out" period which is now long over. Tarasov says: "I was sure we would solve this task if we stepped up the volume and intensity of training, where the character , athleticism and skill of a player would be perfected, and what is most important, would be tempered from day to day like steel is tempered." Well, they're tempered now.

Most of the best coaches are tough and demanding. Blake and Bowman, for example. I see no reason to believe he's going to be any less popular with his players than Scotty Bowman, for example. This can be backed up by actual quotes from players who hated him. Bowman is the most successful coach in history and IIRC, is always the first coach selected.

This weak competition you speak of involves many nations that were playing hockey for decades before the Russians did. He singlehandedly put Russia on top of these nations, almost instantly.

I again encourage you to use the Ullman line to try and check one of my lines. Sure, they can check, but I definitely think Stastny or Richard can burn one of them with ease, and better yet, it takes the puck away from one or your better offensive units. Fine by me.

So Ullman and Duff are slugs now? Ya, OK.

You're kidding, right? Guys like Richard, Tonelli, Anderson, Mullen, and MacLeish are very well known for their clutch abilities. That Henderson guy scored a big goal or two during his days as well, I think. Those three on your team are nice, but mine are also quite good. In fact, my team is chock full of playoff performers and winners.

Morris over Mullen, I could maybe buy that. But Duff being the Anderson of his time? That's a joke, right? Duff is a nice clutch scorer and checker, but Anderson is a very talented offensive player who is one of the greatest playoff performers ever. Duff does not compare.

Mullen and MacLeish, well known as clutch? You're really stretching it now. I may as well just add McKenney, Ullman, Russell, and Staal to the list. Now my list's bigger, so, quick, add three more names to yours!

Anderson is very clutch and I said that. (I also asked how much LW he ever played.) But, what makes him any better than Duff? They were both supporting offensive players on dynasties, never all-stars, known for big goals, gritty (although Duff has a big edge there) and questionable HHOFers. Neither was a notable playmaker. Duff was top-10 in goals twice, top-20 five times. Anderson was top-10 three times, top-20 four times. They are very similar; the greatest difference is that one played in the 1980s and one didn't. Thus, their career totals are what they are.

Henderson sure gets a lot of mileage out of his three summit series game winners. Good player, not great. I was hoping you'd mention him because my 4th line LW was the scoring leader of a dynasty and dominated the playoff scoring charts. In six of eight seasons from 1906-1912, he was a top-5 scorer in the top league in the world. Was Henderson ever considered a top-30 player?

Yes, we all must believe that the PCHA totals are accurate of talent levels, yet the 80s are horrible. Yes, a lot of my guys' totals may be inflated, but yours are the same, and it doesn't erase what those guys accomplished.

I never said that. The 80s NHL did have one minor flaw and that is that there were some excellent players overseas. Ignoring that, it was the best league in the world. The PCHA was like half of the best league. The fact that you could buy Morris over Mullen tells me that you understand this, thank God. No amount of "but it was the PCHA!" and "but it was so long ago!" would overcome the goalscoring and playmaking differential.

The only thing about the 80s is, and it's not your fault, is that it's so easy to look at a guy with 1000 points and say "ooh!" but there are a number of players with 1000 points who were rarely elite. Mullen's not one of them, but like anyone from the 1980s, his totals make him look even better than he actually was. Three top-10s in goals, Five top-20s. Markus Naslund, Ken Hodge, and Marian Hossa are examples of modern wingers with better records than that. I'm not trashing Mullen at all, but I don't want people to see 502 goals, 1063 points and automatically conclude that he is a more significant player to hockey history than a guy who was top-2 in his "conference" in goals and assists, four times each.

The same thing applies to Anderson and Duff, who were basically the same player 25 years apart. (as I said, I'm not claiming Duff is better, just similar and nearly equal)

Also nice of you, when talking about my offense, to ignore my centermen, who are probably the two best offensive players on either team. But that was to be expected. Overall, I'd say I have a very nice edge offensively.

You don't have the greatest top-2 centers out there, but much better than average. And yes, better than ours. Which is fine because it's certainly not a weakness of ours. Stastny and Richard both belong between 60 and 80 on an all-time list, and Ullman does, too. Ratelle I'd place around 110th. We're both doing pretty well.

You may be wondering how I could possibly think Ullman is in their league. Well, I happen to think he is criminally underrated. He is the more accomplished offensive player of the three:

-|Goals|-|-|-|-|Assists|-|-|-|-
Name | Top-2 | Top-5 | Top-10 | Top-15 | Top-20 | Top-2 | Top-5 | Top-10 | Top-15 | Top-20
Ullman | 1 | 3 | 9 | 12 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 12 | 15
H.Richard | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 11
Pe.Stastny | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 8

Ullman is clearly the better goal scorer. he is the only one to ever place in the top-2 in goals. He was top-5 three times. Richard and Stastny only did so once, combined. Ullman was top-10 nine times. Richard and Stastny only did so twice, combined. The trend continues with the top-15 and top-20s as well.

Ullman gives a little bit in top-end playmaking but by the time you're looking at top-10 finishes, he is ahead again, widening his lead further as you expand to top-15s and top-20s.

Ullman did this with really lacklustre linemates as well. According to The Trail, he played one season with Howe and Lindsay, then played center for numerous combinations including Bruce MacGregor, Val Fonteyne, Larry Jeffrey, Paul Henderson, and Lowell McDonald. Richard had a revolving cast of Habs stars, and Stastny at least had Goulet for a decade.

In the playoffs, Ullman sees a point production decline of 10%, which is quite respectable. Stastny declines by 11%, also respectable, and Richard declines by 14%. All decent, the point being that Ullman was able to maintain his production in the playoffs just as much as they could.

Then you get into everything beyond point production. The grit, the defensive play, the heart, that is exactly why Henri Richard is rated as highly as he is despite an offensive record inferior to guys like Bucyk, Ullman, and Delvecchio. I have no doubt that Ullman can match him, quote for quote in this regard. Ullman was an excellent defensive player, tireless worker, dominant forechecker, and a great board man. To me, he sounds like a better offensive version of Henri Richard, that played on a lesser team. Stastny is no sissy or lazy player, but his reputation as a two-way player is nothing special.

so yes, that leaves Ratelle as the clear 4th-best center in the series. It doesn't worry me. First, he's not a bad player at all. You can do a lot worse than have a top-110 player as your 2nd-best center. (correct me if you disagree, but I think only Leaf Lander with Lindros, Mr. bugg with Dionne, MadArcand with Francis, GBC with Lach, you with Stastny, and Rzeznik with Gilmour managed to have a 2nd-best center better than Ratelle... Cup 2008's Oates could go either way) Secondly, he's a great fit with two power forwards with great shots to convert his passes.

(On that note, holy crap, is our division ever strong at center!!!)

Against almost any other team, my centers would be a strength. Against New York, they're not a weakness... just not an advantage.

Then there are the 3rd line centers, of course. McKenney has the edge in every way. Offensively, he's superior. (MacLeish had the two top-5s in goals, McKenney crushes him in top-10, 15, 20. 0-0-4-6-8 to 0-2-2-3-4. MacLeish cracked the top-20 in assists three times, McKenney led the league once and was top-20 six times) - Defensively, he's been described as excellent, solid, and a good two-way player. MacLeish was called "the worst defensive player of the 1970s" by Ultimate Hockey. that may be a bit harsh, considering he killed his share of penalties. But it's not glowing praise. They could have that wrong, but how wrong?

His linemates suffer by the same comparison. Nesterenko could be called a lesser version of Leswick. He was bigger and known for his speed. He's one of my favourites, actually. But he's no Leswick. Leswick has a modest offensive resume, finishing top-10 in goals twice and top-20 another time. Nesterenko was 20th once. Nesterenko was a good defensive player, but Leswick was one of the very best. Nesterenko could agitate, but Leswick is a Legendary agitator. Ramsay and Pavelich are similar. Pavelich is another one of my favourites. For all we know, he could have been as good as Ramsay. Unfortunately, with only quotes to go by (no selke voting or GF/GA numbers) it is impossible to conclusively say that. Neither was ever top-20 in anything, but Ramsay was the better offensive player. I'm not a big adjusted numbers fan, but a quick look at their best seasons for adjusted points tells the story. Pavelich: 45, 43, 41, 40, 40. Ramsay: 64, 62, 55, 55, 50. Although your third line is above average, it doesn't outdo our third line in any way.

Defensively my edge is greater. Like you said, I have an advantage on the first pairing, and while it's not as large as you credit yourself, I'd say you have an edge on the third pairing. However, the second pairing is where I flat out have a massive edge. Lester Patrick is nice, but Robert Svehla belongs nowhere near a second pairing. I know you like the guy, but for you to bash Kaberle and praise Svehla in this thing is lunacy. Svehla was little more than an iron-man who was decent offensively and defensively, and at his best was maybe barely a #1 guy. In all honesty, I'd take Mattias Norstrom, who's one of my call-ups, over him, and considering how they were contemporaries, and Norstrom was flat-out better, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that at all. We are going to eat him alive, and it's not going to be pretty for Regina. Oh, right, comparing second pairings. Well, while yours features Patrick and the worst defenseman of the series, mine features one of hockey's greatest winners ever and a future HHOFer. If you want to talk about big advantages, this is a massive one. Calling them a nut hair better is absolutely ridiculous.

No, that's exactly what they are. Niedermayer is just a modern Patrick (the two are strikingly similar), and Plager was a stay at home guy who wasn't a complete black hole offensively. Svehla was a jack of all trades who put up 40 points five times in the dead puck era. The only thing that would make Plager definitively better, is ATD canon.

- He played one more season (but 41 fewer games)
- He played in a higher-scoring era and never topped 40 points
- He was not more of a presence in Norris voting (12th, 13th vs. 14th, 14th)
- When he played the NHL was watered down by the WHA and a few better defensemen were overseas, you can't say that about Svehla
- His career adjusted +/- of 52 is almost identical to Svehla's 47
- He was known as a tough, physical, heart and soul beast of a defenseman - so was Svehla.

Really, why would anyone take Plager 270 spots ahead of Svehla? How many picks constitute a nut hair? I'd say 10-15.

Your criticisms of Svehla are unnecesarily harsh.

- Svehla was a far more effective player overall than Kaberle. It doesn't take much watching of both players to tell that.
- Svehla was much more than "barely" a #1 guy. "barely #1" guys don't get norris consideration and they don't lead their teams in icetime, especially not by the margins he did. For four straight seasons he had at least a 2:00 edge on the next-highest defenseman on his team, (the exception being 2002 where apparently the Panthers wanted Ozolinsh and Bure to form some sort of hellish dynamic duo) and for five straight he was in the top-18 in ice-time per game, including 8th in 1998 behind only Bourque, Lidstrom, Blake, Chelios, MacInnis, Pronger, and Leetch.

Barely a #1? yeah, right.

As for fourth lines, I also think this is a massive edge. Mine can defend, provide energy and score. Yours can score a bit, I guess, but there's nothing special about it at all. I do really like Oatman, but he's no Rick Vaive, and Eric Staal is a below average fourth liner in every way. Russell is nice, too, but so is Henderson. I'd say I have a nice edge with the fourth units.

Your 4th line's ability to defend is highly dubious when it features Rick Vaive. He was a brutal two-way player.

Even though Staal is already better than Broten ever was, I'd take Broten over him at this point. Staal has the right 4th line mentality, though - go up and down hard, play physical, pop in the odd clutch goal.

Henderson does not compare to Russell, as mentioned above. Russell was a far superior scorer, even in the clutch, and had to have been a lot grittier than that pacifist.

I'd take Oatman on a 4th line over Vaive any day of the week. So Vaive had a few 50-goal seasons. He had a better peak as a goalscorer, that's it. Oatman is tailor-made for the 4th line. He had far better longevity, much better leadership, better consistency, a ton of scrappiness, and is much better offensively, and better balanced offensively too. He was a bonafide star player who, from 1912 through 1920, was always one of hockey's 12 best forwards. He outpointed Dunderdale when they played together. When Vaive was scoring 50 goals and placing in the top-10 three times, would anyone have even called him one of the game's top-10 forwards? I really doubt it. And outside of those three seasons, he never did anything ATD-caliber: he peaked at 55th in league scoring.

In summary: Russell >>> Henderson. Broten > Staal. Oatman >>> Vaive. The ability of the line to defend is dubious. Vaive's poor two-way play would offset Broten's good defensive game, so I don't see how it would defend better than ours, and I can't see how it would score better (neitherdo you). Vaive is also the only one who comes close to his counterpart in physicality. It's just plain a better line with superior players.

 

[seventieslord]

EDIT-Also, that comment about Getzlaf vs. Staal in terms of offense, while Staal's assist totals may go up should he concentrate on playmaking, Getzlaf's goal totals would explode if he simply shot the puck more. His shot is incredible, he just never uses it.

It really is incredible.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Wow, lost my entire post. I'll just the points I feel like addressing:

-I find it very odd you question that Rick MacLeish is clutch, as he's mainly regarded for his ability to step up when needed. His playoff record speaks for itself. His playoff goals per game is ridiculous and just below Sakic's. Mullen, yeah maybe he's not clutch(although he's no playoff disappointment), but you're questioning Rick MacLeish for his ability to step up? Really?

-If you want to call Duff a poor man's Anderson, that's fine, I guess, but these two are not equal. Duff was a checker who scored some big goals and people feel it's a travesty he's in the HHOF. Anderson was a key cog on a dynasty(no, he wasn't as important as Gretzky or Coffey or Kurri, but just because some of the greatest players of all-time were more important than he wasn't a key cog, he most certainly was), one of the greatest playoff performers of all-time, and people felt it was a travesty that he wasn't in the HHOF prior to his induction.

-I think you underrate Henri Richard. No, he doesn't have the greatest scoring record, but that isn't easy when you play on some of the greatest teams of all-time. But he can score, and he's even better away from the puck. No offense to Ullman, but I don't think he compares all that much to Richard. Frank Selke described Richard as possibly the most valuble player he ever had. I'm sure you realize full well what kinds of players he had on his teams, so that's an amazing compliment.

-As for the checking lines, overall I'd say you have an advantage on the wings, although it's close, as you seem to agree. As for MacLeish vs. McKenney, I'd say I have the advantage. I'd take MacLeish's goalscoring record over him(2 top-5s beat 4 top-10s, especially when two of those are 10 on the button and none of those top-10s are in the top-5, in my books). MacLeish also has the better points record(again, two top-fives as opposed to 4 top-10s, none of which are top-5), and I'd argue better career value(and definitely better playoff value). As for his defensive play, I've searched high and low, and that is the only quote that says he was bad defensively. Everywhere else it states how he had to work on his defensive game(at the start of his career) to help the Flyers, and how he took on PK and defensive responsibilities. So, I'm not too sure what's up, but by the sounds of it he was regarded to PK and such on one of the better teams of the 70s, so I'll take that. He scored quite a few SHGs as well.

-I'd say a big difference, past the fact that Niedermayer might be hockey's ultimate winner, is defensive play. We don't know a ton about how great Lester Patrick was defensively aside from a few quotes that probably don't tell us all that much, but Niedermayer is great defensively, although I imagine many have missed that. As I mentioned somewhere earlier, Niedermayer has been Anaheim's shutdown defender during their hey-day, not Chris Pronger. Because of his skating and offensive instincts it often gets missed, but Scott Niedermayer is and has been for some time very good defensively.

-As for Svehla, TOI means a lot less than you're making it out to be. You know who led the 2007 Stanley Cup champions in icetime per game, right? If you guessed either Chris Pronger or Scott Niedermayer, you'd be dead wrong. But I'm not going to go draft Francois Beauchemin anytime soon. Yes, it's nice he got tons of ice-time, but in terms of his actual play, you know, the thing that should matter, he wasn't that impressive of a defenseman, and by ATD standards I don't think he's a fit at all. His "Norris consideration" consists of a couple of 4 total votes, 1 4th place and three 5th. Oleg Tverdovsky has a better record than that. Svehla's nice, but he's not overly good offensively, not overly good defensively, and if he's not your favorite player or whatever, I'm not certain at all that he's an ATDer. As said before, I look forward to seeing him on a second pairing. I see the similarities between him and Plager, but really, Plager was excellent defensively and was a great leader. At best I'd call Svehla good and decent for each category respectively.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Also, I hope the voters have more sense than to buy the argument that "We finished third so clearly they buy into Tarasov's system" or whatever. Not only is that false, as many teams have had some regular season success despite their coach, but it's a slippery slope. If that's an acceptable argument, then any #1 seed can argue that their glaring weaknesses aren't weaknesses because they finished first and so on. Then we might as well have a four team playoff, with every first place team going up against each other and that's it.

Using arguments like that only makes a case for the commish not posting the finishes of the teams and just posting the series' without any seeding. Where you finished is irrelevent other than for home-ice advantage. If people think that Tarasov is a concern, and I do believe he is, then they should consider him a concern.

 

[Reds4Life]

Also, I hope the voters have more sense than to buy the argument that "We finished third so clearly they buy into Tarasov's system" or whatever. Not only is that false, as many teams have had some regular season success despite their coach, but it's a slippery slope. If that's an acceptable argument, then any #1 seed can argue that their glaring weaknesses aren't weaknesses because they finished first and so on. Then we might as well have a four team playoff, with every first place team going up against each other and that's it.

Using arguments like that only makes a case for the commish not posting the finishes of the teams and just posting the series' without any seeding. Where you finished is irrelevent other than for home-ice advantage. If people think that Tarasov is a concern, and I do believe he is, then they should consider him a concern.

I agree. IMHO Tarasov is not a good coach for team like Regina.

 

[seventieslord]

I agree. IMHO Tarasov is not a good coach for team like Regina.

Really? It's easy to throw a statement like that around but a little harder to back it up. Care to read this and then try?

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22023095&postcount=712

WHY TARASOV IS GOOD FOR REGINA

1. We have a very balanced team. Our first line, although strong, does not have a standout player who has to carry the other two. The second line is the same. This will allow for collectivism and not the “leader and feeder†approach.

2. We have a team filled with quiet leadership, not high profile stars. Tarasov loved efficient hockey. What’s more efficient than Craig Ramsay, who outperformed the consensus best defensive forward of all-time, Bob Gainey, statistically with little fanfare? What’s more efficient than Norm Ullman, who got the job done for almost 20 years, perennially in the top-20 in scoring mostly with lesser linemates, while playing a very solid physical and defensive game? What’s more efficient than Jean Ratelle, who put up an offensive record better than flashy guys like Gilbert Perreault who got all the attention? What’s more efficient than Hap Day, the best defenseman to never be named an all-star? What’s more efficient than the quiet and smooth Don McKenney, with his underappreciated array of regular season and playoff top-10s and strong defensive game? These were all quiet and efficient guys who just got the job done, year in and year out while others got the individual attention. That’s just how Anatoly wants it.

3. We have a very offensively charged team. Our worst offensive forward is probably Craig Ramsay, who was still an excellent even strength scorer himself. Every line has multiple top-10 scorers on it. Although filled with two-way players, it is a balanced lineup that has the ability to always be on the attack. Tarasov did not like conservative defensive hockey, and his reasoning for why is very solid:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
By focusing on a solely defensive strategy, you are behind right from the start. Because you are telling your troops that the enemy is better than them, that the only way they will win is to stop the enemy from scoring. In addition, by spending the game in a conservative defensive position you sacrifice initiative, and initiative wins hockey games.

4. Tarasov likes educated players. Lester and Frank Patrick both have university degrees from McGill and are probably two of the three biggest students of the game ever, along with Tarasov. In addition, Gord Roberts is a fully licensed physician and Hap Day a pharmacist. Tarasov is a thinking man, and this is a thinking man’s team.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice Of Russia
For one, Tarasov insisted that his trainees continued their education. “It’s easier to work with educated people,†he would say.

5. Tarasov was adamant about having a transition game. Coffey is probably the second best blueliner ever on the transition, and the Patricks were excellent skaters and puck carriers too. They can all make the first pass and get the play going the other way. He will particulatly like Coffey, who has the ability to weave through a team to the opponent's net:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
It is wrong to train players only from the point of view of defence. A defenseman, even if he is positional, must always keep in mind his constructive functions. A defenceman is on the ice not only for retrieving the puck or to throw it out of his zone, but to organize a counter-attack... The danger of a defenseman should not be simply narrowed down to powerful slap shots from the blueline. I see no reason why a high class, technical defenseman should not come up much closer to the enemy's goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
A defenseman, after retrieving the puck, must immediately on the second step, not later, whip a pass to a teammate who has already picked up speed. He must make use of these few seconds when the attacking enemy has still not got the time to return and put up its defense barriers. Only then will it be possible to speak of our advance forward as a counterattack, when leaving our own zone we are already a real threat to the enemy goal, and this counterattack will be a stern warning to the enemy to be more than careful when he attacks us.

6. Tarasov was a big fan of our true star player, Jacques Plante, and after seeing him, was sold on his trademerk “recoil†style that he perfected, as well as his philosophy that you can’t possibly stop every puck with reflexes – intuition is much more important.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Road To Olympus
For years it was thought that during an enemy attack a goalie should move forward to meet the oncoming danger, at exactly the moment when the shot is about to be fired. However, there is a better way: to take his initial position beforehand, so that he will then have time to maneuver - to fall back or to move from side to side, with the actions of the enemy... A goalie should be able to foresee the trajectory of a shot; he should know exactly how this forward approaching him is going to fire. He should know, not guess.

 

[seventieslord]

Wow, lost my entire post. I'll just the points I feel like addressing:

-I find it very odd you question that Rick MacLeish is clutch, as he's mainly regarded for his ability to step up when needed. His playoff record speaks for itself. His playoff goals per game is ridiculous and just below Sakic's. Mullen, yeah maybe he's not clutch(although he's no playoff disappointment), but you're questioning Rick MacLeish for his ability to step up? Really?

macleish's playoff record is pretty good, like a lot of ATD forwards. He's just not one of the first names that would pop into my head as a "clutch" player.

-If you want to call Duff a poor man's Anderson, that's fine, I guess, but these two are not equal. Duff was a checker who scored some big goals and people feel it's a travesty he's in the HHOF. Anderson was a key cog on a dynasty(no, he wasn't as important as Gretzky or Coffey or Kurri, but just because some of the greatest players of all-time were more important than he wasn't a key cog, he most certainly was), one of the greatest playoff performers of all-time, and people felt it was a travesty that he wasn't in the HHOF prior to his induction.

Are these the same people who now think he is a weak hall of famer?

Duff was not just a checker who scored some big goals. On five occasions he found himself in the top-20 in the NHL in goals. This was even more often than Anderson. Considering the help Anderson had, I'd say that is rather impressive. (Duff also had some helo when his teams got good, but his two best goalscoring seasons were from when the Leafs were mediocre) this is a clear case of being blinded by career totals. Duff and Anderson are the same player.

-I think you underrate Henri Richard. No, he doesn't have the greatest scoring record, but that isn't easy when you play on some of the greatest teams of all-time. But he can score, and he's even better away from the puck. No offense to Ullman, but I don't think he compares all that much to Richard. Frank Selke described Richard as possibly the most valuble player he ever had. I'm sure you realize full well what kinds of players he had on his teams, so that's an amazing compliment.

Absolutely. As I said, Henri Richard brought a lot to the table besides offense. Clearly, so did Ullman. Did Henri provide more? Prove it. As for the offense, it's a bit of a cop-out to say that he produced less because he was on such a strong team. Generally you should get more points with stronger players and a stronger team around you.

-As for the checking lines, overall I'd say you have an advantage on the wings, although it's close, as you seem to agree. As for MacLeish vs. McKenney, I'd say I have the advantage. I'd take MacLeish's goalscoring record over him(2 top-5s beat 4 top-10s, especially when two of those are 10 on the button and none of those top-10s are in the top-5, in my books). MacLeish also has the better points record(again, two top-fives as opposed to 4 top-10s, none of which are top-5), and I'd argue better career value(and definitely better playoff value). As for his defensive play, I've searched high and low, and that is the only quote that says he was bad defensively. Everywhere else it states how he had to work on his defensive game(at the start of his career) to help the Flyers, and how he took on PK and defensive responsibilities. So, I'm not too sure what's up, but by the sounds of it he was regarded to PK and such on one of the better teams of the 70s, so I'll take that. He scored quite a few SHGs as well.

You're serious? You'd take MacLeish over McKenney? that's insanity. But I guess you're serious because you did select him before McKenney was taken.

Having those two top-5s in goals is nice. It doesn't outweigh the 4-2 gap in top-10 seasons, the 6-3 gap in top-15 seasons, or the 8-4 gap in top-20 seasons. And he's nowhere near McKenney as a playmaker. I've already shown he can't compare defensively (unless you show me something tangible that would make him better than McKenney in that area)

-I'd say a big difference, past the fact that Niedermayer might be hockey's ultimate winner, is defensive play. We don't know a ton about how great Lester Patrick was defensively aside from a few quotes that probably don't tell us all that much, but Niedermayer is great defensively, although I imagine many have missed that. As I mentioned somewhere earlier, Niedermayer has been Anaheim's shutdown defender during their hey-day, not Chris Pronger. Because of his skating and offensive instincts it often gets missed, but Scott Niedermayer is and has been for some time very good defensively.

I've got no problem with Niedermayer's defensive play. It wasn't always his best point but he's done very well. There's not much on Patrick's defense but what we do know is very positive. He also had better size, more physicality and toughness, and was even stronger offensively. Really, the only thing that holds him back is the lack of definitive proof that his defense was excellent.

-As for Svehla, TOI means a lot less than you're making it out to be. You know who led the 2007 Stanley Cup champions in icetime per game, right? If you guessed either Chris Pronger or Scott Niedermayer, you'd be dead wrong. But I'm not going to go draft Francois Beauchemin anytime soon. Yes, it's nice he got tons of ice-time, but in terms of his actual play, you know, the thing that should matter, he wasn't that impressive of a defenseman, and by ATD standards I don't think he's a fit at all. His "Norris consideration" consists of a couple of 4 total votes, 1 4th place and three 5th. Oleg Tverdovsky has a better record than that. Svehla's nice, but he's not overly good offensively, not overly good defensively, and if he's not your favorite player or whatever, I'm not certain at all that he's an ATDer. As said before, I look forward to seeing him on a second pairing. I see the similarities between him and Plager, but really, Plager was excellent defensively and was a great leader. At best I'd call Svehla good and decent for each category respectively.

Playoffs are a small sample size. Some players rise to the occasion, others take a backseat for a while. Good for Beauchemin but that was one playoff and his career doesn't warrant him being drafted, as you've said.

Ice time in the regular season means a ton. At the end of the season, the ice time leaders read like a who's who of the best defensemen in the NHL.

Show me that Plager was so much better as a leader and defensive player that he should be selected 270 spots earlier.

Also, I hope the voters have more sense than to buy the argument that "We finished third so clearly they buy into Tarasov's system" or whatever. Not only is that false, as many teams have had some regular season success despite their coach, but it's a slippery slope. If that's an acceptable argument, then any #1 seed can argue that their glaring weaknesses aren't weaknesses because they finished first and so on. Then we might as well have a four team playoff, with every first place team going up against each other and that's it.

Using arguments like that only makes a case for the commish not posting the finishes of the teams and just posting the series' without any seeding. Where you finished is irrelevent other than for home-ice advantage. If people think that Tarasov is a concern, and I do believe he is, then they should consider him a concern.

We don't need to "hide" behind our higher ranking to win. Tarasov's a better coach, and he's a more suited coach to our team. there's no reason to believe that he'll "lose" his team unless you are regina's opponent and grasping at straws, trying to plant seeds of doubt.

 

[jarek]

Anyone else who chooses to believe that Tarasov is not a good coach, or a good coach for our team or whatever, please please PLEASE read the bio seventies put together on him. Tarasov is one of the greatest strategists in hockey of all time in my opinion. He used very unorthodox methods, but clearly they worked, as he had an over 80% winning percentage as a coach. Everything about him is about being prepared to outlast your opponent, and that if you can handle his tough training methods, then the games should be a lot easier. Take a look at many of his training methods. Many of them put his players into extreme situations, but many of those players always trusted and believed in Tarasov's methods. Just ask Tretiak or Kharlamov. Tretiak trusted every word Tarasov said, and Kharlamov was quoted as saying the training he went through under him was worth it. He's all about winning, and the results prove it.

As far as scoring, I don't know about New York's numbers, but here are some of the numbers Regina's players boast:

Roberts:

- Top-10 in goals 7 times (1st*, 2nd*, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd*, 8th, 9th) *-PCHA
- Top-10 in assists 3 times (2nd, 4th, 10th)
- Top-10 in points 7 times (2nd*, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd*, 5th*, 6th, 10th) *-PCHA
- Led Stanley Cup series in goals (1910)

Ratelle:

- Top-10 in goals 3 times (5th, 6th, 7th)
- Top-20 in goals 7 times (exceeded by 63 players)
- Top-10 in assists 6 times (3rd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th)
- Top-20 in assists 11 times (exceeded by 19 players)
- Top-10 in playoff goals 3 times (2nd, 4th, 9th)
- Top-10 in playoff assists 3 times (3rd, 7th, 9th)
- Top-10 in playoff points 3 times (4th, 5th, 7th)

Mikhailov:

- Top-6 in Soviet League Scoring in 14 of 15 seasons from 1966-1980 (1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th)

Duff:

- Top-20 in goals 5 times (8th, 9th, 11th, 16th, 20th)
- Top-10 in playoff goals 4 times (4th, 5th, 7th, 7th)
- Top-10 in playoff assists 6 times (3rd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th)
- Top-10 in playoff points 5 times (3rd, 4th, 8th, 9th, 10th)

Ullman:

- Top-10 in goals nine times (1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 10th)
- Top-20 in goals 13 times, exceeded only by Howe, Esposito, Stewart, Mahovlich
- Top-10 in assists nine times (4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 10th)
- Top-20 in assists 15 times, exceeded only by Howe, Gretzky, Delvecchio, Bucyk
- Top-10 in points eight times (2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th)
- Top-5 in playoff goals four times (1st-1966, 2nd-1964, 4th-1965, 5th-1963)
- Top-2 in playoff assists three times (1st-1963, 2nd-1964, 2nd-1966)
- Top-6 in playoff points four times (1st-1963, 1st-1963, 2nd-1964, 6th-1965)

Morris:

- PCHA First All-Star Team (1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1922)
- PCHA Second All-Star Team (1921, 1923)
- Top-10 in PCHA Goals 7 times (1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th)
- Top-10 in PCHA Assists 6 times (1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 6th)
- Top-10 in PCHA Points 7 times (1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th)
- 6th in goals, 10th in assists, 7th in points in his one WCHL season (1924)
- Stanley Cup scoring leader (1917)
- 2nd in playoff scoring behind Howie Morenz (1924)

Russell:

- 5th, 1st, 5th in ECAHA Scoring (1906, 1907, 1908)
- 2nd, 8th, 2nd in NHA Scoring (1910, 1911, 1912)
- Stanley Cup Scoring:
- 1906: 1st on Wanderers, 5th overall
- 1907: 1st on Wanderers, 1st overall
- 1908: 1st on Wanderers, 1st overall
- 1910: 1st on Wanderers, 6th overall (Wanderers played 1 game, Ottawa played 4)

Staal:

- Top-11 in goals 3 times (5th, 8th, 11th)
- 16th in assists (2006)
- Top-15 in points twice (8th, 15th)
- Top-6 in playoff goals twice (3rd, 6th)
- NHL Playoff assist leader (2006)
- Top-10 in playoff points twice (1st, 9th)

Oatman:

- Top-10 in Goals in his league (OPHL, NHA, PCHA) 10 times (3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 10th)
- Top-10 in Assists in his league 13 times (1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 9th)
- Top-10 in Points in his league 12 times (3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 10th)
- Top-10 in PIM in his league 11 times (2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 10th)
- On pace for 3rd in Goals, 1st in Assists, 3rd in points in 1917 NHA before 228th Battallion's season was cut short (finished 8th, 3rd, 7th, included above)
- 1st or 2nd on his team in scoring in 10 of 11 seasons from 1910-1920 (5X 1st, 5X 2nd)

Coffey:

- 7th in goals (1986)
- Top-10 in assists 9 times (2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 8th, 10th)
- Top-10 in points 6 times (2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 9th)
- Top-7 in points by a defenseman 15 straight seasons (1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th)
- Top-6 in playoff goals three times (3rd, 6th)
- Top-6 in playoff assists three times (2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th)
- Top-5 in playoff points three times (2nd, 4th, 5th)
- Top-8 in playoff points by a defenseman 11 times (1st, 1st, 1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th)
- Starred in the 1984, 1987, 1991, and 1996 Canada/World Cup Tournaments, scoring 31 points in 33 GP - 2nd most points in World/Canada cups ever behind only Gretzky!

Day (VERY underrated offensively!):

- 5th in assists (1925)
- Top-7 in Points by defensemen 8 times (1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th)
- 5th in Playoff Points (1932)
- Top-2 in Playoff Points by defensemen twice (1st, 2nd)

Lester Patrick:

- Top-10 in points twice as a forward (8th-1906-ECAHA, 3rd-1910-NHA)
- Top-10 in PCHA points four times as a defensemen (5th, 5th, 9th, 10th)
- Top-3 in PCHA Points by a defenseman 8 times (1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd)
- 4th in points by defensemen in the consolidated WHL at age 42 and actually had the highest points per game average (1926)
- 2nd in Stanley Cup Series Scoring (1907)

Svehla:

- Top-13 in NHL Blueliner Scoring four times (10th, 11th, 12th, 13th)

Frank Patrick:

- PCHA Assist Leader (1913)
- Top-10 in PCHA scoring 4 times (2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th)
- 2nd in defense scoring in 1908 ECAHA and 1910 NHA
- PCHA defense scoring leader all 4 full PCHA seasons he played (1912, 1913, 1914, 1917)

James Patrick:

- 6th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th in scoring by defensemen
- 6th in playoff points by defensemen (1990)


A note about Svehla: He doesn't HAVE to be great offensively playing with Lester Patrick, who along with Frank Patrick, account for the two highest scoring defensemen in PCHA history on a per game level. Svehla is what Lester may lack: a solid defensive presence and a physical powerhouse. He was consistently high among hits leaders throughout the entire league. He shut down the likes of Mario Lemieux. That's not bad at all.

A note about Frank Patrick: Playing on our third pairing, Frank is likely going to see some of New York's weaker players. This is good for us. Not only is he a tough player, but he was very skilled. He's going to put on a clinic exposing New York's 4th line along with James Patrick.

Voters, do not forget that that we also have Jacques Plante in net. BRG seems to seriously underrate our team offensively, and unless he can show otherwise, I don't see his team being that far ahead offensively at all. Certainly not enough to close the goaltending gap, and with us having a tactical master as our coach, we can be sure that our players will be employed to maximum effectiveness as opposed to what Hitchcock may do.

I also don't understand where all this crap is coming from that Tarasov's teams played suspect defense. I seriously doubt the Soviets would have become the world's hockey powerhouse with him as a coach because he didn't appreciate good defensive play, nor become enshrined in the IIHF and Russian Hall of Fames. The man wanted his players to play their hardest in every zone of the ice, but also be very quick in their transition game, using great skating and passing skills to maximize that. We certainly have the skating skills, and we have exceptional playmakers on every line (Ratelle, Morris, McKenney, Oatman). This bodes well for Regina in my eyes. Dismantling the trap system that Hitchcock employs requires everything that Tarasov preaches, especially quick skating and passing.

And then, in the end, New York's skaters are shooting on Jacques Plante, who will be very comfortable behind a Regina team that is defensively responsible throughout the lineup.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Playoffs are a small sample size. Some players rise to the occasion, others take a backseat for a while. Good for Beauchemin but that was one playoff and his career doesn't warrant him being drafted, as you've said.

Ice time in the regular season means a ton. At the end of the season, the ice time leaders read like a who's who of the best defensemen in the NHL.

Show me that Plager was so much better as a leader and defensive player that he should be selected 270 spots earlier.

I don't have much time, so for now I'll just reply to this. Anyway, this is no small sample size thing. In 05-06 Beachemin was playing ridiculously high minutes as well in both the playoffs and regular season, to the tune of 24 and 27 respectively. Yeah, he was behind Niedermayer, but for a guy who many thought would be assigned to the AHL upon arrival, that's a ridiculously high total. And he continued to play ridiculously high minutes until the 07-08 playoffs. Again, TOI means very little to me to show how effective they were. As for regular season TOI finishes, Beauchemin finished 14th in 06-07 and 11th in 07-08. What were Svehla's finishes, 18th, 12th, and 11th? Yeah, little difference. Also, Florida's defense wasn't exactly strong whatsoever during Svehla's time there, so it's not surprising to see him rack up high totals. Notice Svehla goes to Toronto, a team with some decent defenders, and all of a sudden he's not leading his team but instead barely beating out Bryan McCabe for icetime. And again, his play on the ice shows little to suggest he's a good fit on an ATD second pairing.

As for Plager, defensive play is ridiculously hard to show, but he was one of the best defenseman on one of the better defensive teams post-expansion. He was their leading shot blocking and hitter, and was a big part in that expansion team getting to the Stanley Cup finals in three straight seasons. Svehla played a part in the Panthers going to the Cup finals in 96(but realistically that was all Beezer). His number 8 is also retired by the St. Louis Blues, which just goes to show how much he means to that organization and how great of a player he was for them.

 

[Evil Sather]

Championing Svehla's hits totals as evidence of his physicality is lol. It was REALLY well known (and not that long ago) that the Florida guys were super lax with their interpretation of a "hit".

 

[jarek]

Championing Svehla's hits totals as evidence of his physicality is lol. It was REALLY well known (and not that long ago) that the Florida guys were super lax with their interpretation of a "hit".

Ok, well then how about the numerous sources that insist Svehla was physical?

Originally Posted by loh.net
...For Svehla, the decisive break came in the 1991-92 season. It was his first time to play on Czechoslovakia's national team. With them he won the bronze at the Albertville Olympics and later at the World Championship, where he was named best defenceman. With the Dukla Trencin club he took the championship title, and at the end of the season he won the Golden Stick Award as the top player in the country. From there his career took off.

Toward the end of the 1994-95 season, he managed to play five games for the Panthers. No one could have imagined how quickly he would become their leading defenceman.
At the age of 25 he was still considered a rookie, but on the ice he didn't look at all like the typical nervous greenhorn. Instead, he became one of the team's workhorses. Former coach **** *******called him the toughest player to come into his hands during his three years with the Panthers. Svehla could get respect in front of the net. As an experienced skater, he cleared space at the net and attacked near the boards just as strongly. But he wasn't getting about 30 minutes of ice time per game for those reasons alone. He brought the Panthers perspective and a talent for clever passing and hard shooting.

In the spring of 1996 the Panthers quite unexpectedly progressed to the Stanley Cup finals. With 57 points, Svehla had an excellent season behind him. He also did quite well in the playoffs, where he and ***** ******* allowed Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr only two goals in the best-of-seven finals of the Eastern Conference against Pittsburgh. (see below for more on this)

After representing Slovakia at the 1996 World Cup, Svehla went on to score a career-high 13 goals in 1996-97, collected 45 points and lined up for the NHL All-Star Game. Svehla went on to play eight seasons in Florida and represented his homeland at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano and later that spring at the World Championships before being acquired by the Toronto Maple Leafs in the summer of 2002.

One of the more durable players in the league, Svehla played his fourth consecutive season without missing a game in 2002-03 and was a member of Slovakia's silver medal team at the 2003 World Championships.

Originally Posted by Players: The Ultimate A-Z Guide Of Everyone Who Has Ever Played in the NHL
Florida caught a break when Calgary drafted Svehla in 1992 and then refused to offer him a one-way deal. He stayed in Czechoslovakia, preferring league play to a possible career in the minors, and two years later the Flames gave up and traded him to the Panthers for a pair of draft picks. Oops. Svehla joined Florida late in the 94-95 season and almost instantly became their top defenseman. He could do everything. He hit hard and often, he blocked shots, he moved the puck speedily, he played with pain that made team doctors wince. For eight seasons, he was their leader, but when he threatened to retire in 2002, the Panthers sent him to Toronto for Dimitri Yushkevich. Outside the NHL, Svehla was fiercely proud of his young country. In fact, when he agreed to come to Toronto, he arranged for the Leafs to supply his home club of Trencin with much-needed money. In 1992, he played at the Olympics and the World Championships with Czechoslovakia but since then, Svehla has played with the Slovaks every chance he could get.

Originally Posted by NY Times, 5/25/1996
The teams furiously exchanged hard body checks in the opening period, eager to establish dominance. During one sequence, Mario Lemieux punched defenseman Robert Svehla in the face after Svehla had knocked the puck away. Svehla then retaliated with a forearm that lifted Lemieux off the ice and onto his back. Svehla went to the penalty box for roughing.

A bit on some defensive play:

Originally Posted by NY Times, 5/27/1996
Groggy, Jagr didn't return until less than a minute remained in the period. He promptly showed his explosiveness with a near-breakaway thwarted only by defenseman Robert Svehla's lunging shoulder nudge... And shortly thereafter, Lemieux was bearing in on another breakaway when Svehla dove fully extended and flicked the puck away.

And one more on toughness:

Originally Posted by Peter Worrell, THN interview, 2004
The toughest player I've ever seen is Robert Svehla. The amount of pain that guy can endure is unreal.

 

[jarek]

I don't have much time, so for now I'll just reply to this. Anyway, this is no small sample size thing. In 05-06 Beachemin was playing ridiculously high minutes as well in both the playoffs and regular season, to the tune of 24 and 27 respectively. Yeah, he was behind Niedermayer, but for a guy who many thought would be assigned to the AHL upon arrival, that's a ridiculously high total. And he continued to play ridiculously high minutes until the 07-08 playoffs. Again, TOI means very little to me to show how effective they were. As for regular season TOI finishes, Beauchemin finished 14th in 06-07 and 11th in 07-08. What were Svehla's finishes, 18th, 12th, and 11th? Yeah, little difference. Also, Florida's defense wasn't exactly strong whatsoever during Svehla's time there, so it's not surprising to see him rack up high totals. Notice Svehla goes to Toronto, a team with some decent defenders, and all of a sudden he's not leading his team but instead barely beating out Bryan McCabe for icetime. And again, his play on the ice shows little to suggest he's a good fit on an ATD second pairing.

As for Plager, defensive play is ridiculously hard to show, but he was one of the best defenseman on one of the better defensive teams post-expansion. He was their leading shot blocking and hitter, and was a big part in that expansion team getting to the Stanley Cup finals in three straight seasons. Svehla played a part in the Panthers going to the Cup finals in 96(but realistically that was all Beezer). His number 8 is also retired by the St. Louis Blues, which just goes to show how much he means to that organization and how great of a player he was for them.

Ok, who were Plager's teammates exactly?

As for the '96 playoffs being all Beezer.. I'm going to have to ask you to defend that one, because I believe that is absurd. Several players were key contributors for that team, including Svehla.

Let's get past all this ice time stuff and realize what Svehla is there for: to provide more physicality and a defensive conscience for Lester Patrick, a role he fills quite admirably IMO.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't have much time, so for now I'll just reply to this. Anyway, this is no small sample size thing. In 05-06 Beachemin was playing ridiculously high minutes as well in both the playoffs and regular season, to the tune of 24 and 27 respectively. Yeah, he was behind Niedermayer, but for a guy who many thought would be assigned to the AHL upon arrival, that's a ridiculously high total. And he continued to play ridiculously high minutes until the 07-08 playoffs. Again, TOI means very little to me to show how effective they were. As for regular season TOI finishes, Beauchemin finished 14th in 06-07 and 11th in 07-08. What were Svehla's finishes, 18th, 12th, and 11th? Yeah, little difference. Also, Florida's defense wasn't exactly strong whatsoever during Svehla's time there, so it's not surprising to see him rack up high totals. Notice Svehla goes to Toronto, a team with some decent defenders, and all of a sudden he's not leading his team but instead barely beating out Bryan McCabe for icetime. And again, his play on the ice shows little to suggest he's a good fit on an ATD second pairing.

Beauchemin's been crap this year, but I'm not sure why you think he was so mediocre and undeserving of his icetime before that. Every time I saw him, he looked great.

Florida's defense wasn't the best, but it was average. They did have Ed Jovanovski, who was very highly regarded. It's funny how the icetime leaders look like a list of the top NHL defensemen, but Svehla is this lone "red herring" who just doesn't belong there. (beauchemin too, I guess) He was a force. I'm pretty sure I saw 40 TML games in 2002-03 (it wasn't like now, where I can afford center ice) and he was definitely our most reliable defenseman.

As for Plager, defensive play is ridiculously hard to show, but he was one of the best defenseman on one of the better defensive teams post-expansion. He was their leading shot blocking and hitter, and was a big part in that expansion team getting to the Stanley Cup finals in three straight seasons. Svehla played a part in the Panthers going to the Cup finals in 96(but realistically that was all Beezer). His number 8 is also retired by the St. Louis Blues, which just goes to show how much he means to that organization and how great of a player he was for them.

Yes, he was their best defenseman. Were they one of the better defensive teams? Tough to say. They got to play a lot of games against other expansion teams. They were likely the best in their (weaker) division. He was definitely an important figure in the team's history but the same thing can be said for Svehla and Florida. Realistically, you can't expect him to take them to three finals in a 26-team NHL; Plager's Blues did it in a league where they just had to beat out two expansion teams to get there. newspaper accounts say that Svehla had a very important role in getting Florida past Mario and Jami; what can you tell me about Plager's role in St. Louis' finals runs and which star players he had to shut down to get there?

Championing Svehla's hits totals as evidence of his physicality is lol. It was REALLY well known (and not that long ago) that the Florida guys were super lax with their interpretation of a "hit".

Unfortunately, hit stats seem to have disappeared from the NHL.com site as though they never existed before the lockout.

What you say may be true; I would love the opportunity to check into that. If it was true (for example, hits were recorded 20% more often in Florida than other arenas) I would run some new figures with Florida adjusted by 20%. I'm sure Svehla would have still ranked very highly. If he led the league, he likely led his team, by a wide margin, so either way, that is evidence that he was very physical. Which can also be confirmed by watching the guy.

...and, what jarek said.

 

[seventieslord]

Ok, who were Plager's teammates exactly?

As for the '96 playoffs being all Beezer.. I'm going to have to ask you to defend that one, because I believe that is absurd. Several players were key contributors for that team, including Svehla.

Let's get past all this ice time stuff and realize what Svehla is there for: to provide more physicality and a defensive conscience for Lester Patrick, a role he fills quite admirably IMO.

beezer was outstanding that year and was their most important player, but it was far from singlehanded.

That team had ridiculous forward depth. Nothing top-end, but so many decent players. The difference between their best forward and 9th-best was probably the smallest of any team in history. (LOL, I remember NHL '97 had them all between 69 and 73 overall, in the days when player's ratings ranged from 50 to 100)

Svehla was their best defenseman. He was a beast against Pittsburgh. Jovanovski also deserves credit for his battles with Lindros in round 2.