ATD 12 Rene Lecavalier Final: 1 Detroit Falcons vs. 6 Renfrew Millionaires

[God Bless Canada]

DETROIT FALCONS

GM: EagleBelfour
Coach: Herb Brooks
Assistant Coach:Father David Bauer

Woody Dumart - Milt Schmidt (C) - Bobby Bauer
Roy Conacher - Duke Keats (A) - Harry Hyland
Harry P. Watson - Phil Goyette - Bobby Rousseau
Ed Sandford - Buddy O'Connor - Harry Oliver

Bill Quackenbush - Jimmy Thomson (A)
Lionel Conacher (A) - Cyclone Wentworth
Art Duncan - Bucko McDonald

Terry Sawchuk
Mike Karakas

Reggie Fleming (LW/D)
Wally Hergesheimer (RW)

Powerplay:
Woody Dumart - Milt Schmidt - Bobby Bauer
Bill Quackenbush - Lionel Conacher

Roy Conacher - Duke Keats - Harry Hyland
Jimmy Thomson - Bobby Rousseau

Harry Watson - Buddy O'Connor - Harry Oliver
Art Duncan - Cy Wentworth

Penalty Kill:
Milt Schmidt - Woody Dumart
Cy Wentworth - Jimmy Thomson

Phil Goyette - Bobby Rousseau
Bill Quackenbush - Bucko McDonald

Buddy O'Connor - Harry Watson
Art Duncan - Lionel Conacher


Call-Ups:
Dubbie Kerr - Herb Carnegie - Art Gagne
Vasili Pervukhin - Steamer Maxwell
Bert Lindsay


VS


RENFREW MILLIONAIRES

GM: overpass
Coach: Billy Reay

Valeri Kharlamov - Sergei Fedorov - Rod Gilbert
Patrik Elias - Sidney Crosby - Ziggy Palffy
Bob Bourne - Keith Primeau - George Armstrong(C)
Simon Gagne - Vladimir Shadrin - Owen Nolan

Mark Howe - Alexei Kasatonov
Si Griffis(A) - Pat Egan
Mike Ramsey(A) - Teppo Numminen

Dominik Hasek
Jean-Sebastien Giguere

Spares
Alf Skinner
Bruce MacGregor
Fredrik Olausson

Minors
Sergei Kapustin - Pavol Demitra - Barney Stanley
Darryl Sydor - Chris Phillips
Dan Bouchard

Power Play Units
Kharlamov-Primeau-Crosby
Howe-Fedorov

Gilbert-Nolan-Palffy
Griffis-Egan

Penalty Kill Units
Howe-Fedorov
Ramsey-Kasatonov
Hasek

Bourne-Shadrin
Griffis-Numminen
Hasek

Primeau-Armstrong​

Click to read more...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Is it just me, or is Detroit's 2nd line better than it's 1st?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is it just me, or is Detroit's 2nd line better than it's 1st?

Better personal, perhaps. But the Krauts get extra points for known chemistry in my opinion.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Better personal, perhaps. But the Krauts get extra points for known chemistry in my opinion.

Part of me feels it's handycapping Schmidt in an ATD contest. But, EB wisely has them built as the primary checking with depth providing offence.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Part of me feels it's handycapping Schmidt in an ATD contest. But, EB wisely has them built as the primary checking with depth providing offence.

Thank You, you understood perfectly what I was trying to do with my team. In my opinion, the second line is indeed better offensively, but the Krauts bring a dimension to a team that very few offensive line can. Also that's the biggest reason I went with an offensive 4th line.

Does it handicap Milt Schmidt in a ATD context? Well I'm sure if Schmidt was playing with Ted Lindsay and Bernard Geoffrion they will put up more points on the boards, but if you ask Schmidt himself, I'm almost sure he would tell you he prefer playing with his old buddies. ''The Krauts'' is the tightest group of individual I ever read in hockey. They came from the same city, played for the same junior team, played their entire career together, were living together, went to war together ... If chemistry is a plus in the ATD, it can't get any better than that.
---------------

I'll be able to answers question or make my own claims either late tonight or Saturday. Good luck overpass.

 

[overpass]

Good luck to you also EagleBelfour.

I won't get to any in-depth analysis now, but I'll fire an opening shot.

I think Detroit is really lacking on the first unit power play. The Kraut wingers are below-par offensively for a first unit. Conacher was rarely a top offensive player. Quackenbush was among the best offensive d-men of his time, but that was a time when defencemen weren't as involved in the offence.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Thank You, you understood perfectly what I was trying to do with my team. In my opinion, the second line is indeed better offensively, but the Krauts bring a dimension to a team that very few offensive line can. Also that's the biggest reason I went with an offensive 4th line.

Yeah, looking at this series, I love the idea of Fedorov and Schmidt going head to head. Should be interesting.

One though, put the Conacher-Wentworth pairing with the Krauts, You want Wentworth's skating against Kharlamov.

 

[overpass]

I haven't decided how I want to run my lines, but it seems the Falcons will look to match his first line against my first line.

While I respect the Krauts as a line, Bobby Bauer against Kharlamov is not a great defensive matchup.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Good luck to you also EagleBelfour.

I won't get to any in-depth analysis now, but I'll fire an opening shot.

I think Detroit is really lacking on the first unit power play. The Kraut wingers are below-par offensively for a first unit. Conacher was rarely a top offensive player. Quackenbush was among the best offensive d-men of his time, but that was a time when defencemen weren't as involved in the offence.

- What my first powerplay unit lack in term of offensive abilities, my second unit make it up. I believe that my second PP unit is one of the most gifted offensively in the draft. There was no way I was tiering them apart, but people have to understand that both of my unit will see equal ice-time on the powerplay.

If you say that my first powerplay is a poor one in term of offensive abilties, which I have to give you is not the greatest, I will say that your second unit of Nolan - Shadrin - Palffy is miles away in term of offensive abilities than my Conacher-Keats-Hyland trio. Overall, I believe I have the more apt powerplay.

- Lionel Conacher was rarely a top-offensive player?

Top-10 Scoring among defenseman (1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 7th)
Top-10 Goalscoring among defenseman (1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 7th, 7th)
Top-10 Assist among defenseman (2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 5th, 5th)

Lionel Conacher was one of the top-offensive defenseman of his ERA. I don't where you got the idea he was poor offensively; you where misinformed on that subject.

- Quackenbush was one of the more offensively involved defenseman of his ERA.

Defenseman Hubert "Bill"Quackenbush was among the NHL's elite rushing blueliners.

he had established himself as one of the most effective rushing defenseman in the game. He was an excellent checker.

Quackenbush was known as a strong rusher and excellent checker.

Again, I don't know why you're saying that defenseman in these days were not ''as involved'' offensively.

------------------

One though, put the Conacher-Wentworth pairing with the Krauts, You want Wentworth's skating against Kharlamov.

It's definitely something I have in mind. I also see Quackenbush being extremely effective against Kharlamov, although that might put him too much into a defensive mode and not rush the puck as much as he could. I'll look into that, but I think your suggestion is a pretty good one: Cy Wentworth is one of the greatest defensive defenseman of his ERA while having the speed to counter Kharlamov. And can you imagine Roy Conacher-Duke Keats-Harry Hyland-Bill Quackenbush and Jimmy Thomson playing against Si Griffis but especially Pat Egan?

I haven't decided how I want to run my lines, but it seems the Falcons will look to match his first line against my first line.

While I respect the Krauts as a line, Bobby Bauer against Kharlamov is not a great defensive matchup.

Where did I say that??? ... Although that's probably what I'll do

Yes, purely one against one, Bauer would be a good matchup for Kharlamov, but believe me if those lines match up together, Kharlamov will have hands full with Woody Dumart but especially Milt Schmidt, that will probably have to take a step offensively, but will be sure to counter Kharlamov and take their chances on the counter-attack. Kharlamov will also have ot pass through a second layer with one of the greatest defensive defenseman of his ERA in Cy Wentworth and a third layer with one of the greatest goaltender of All-Time in Terry Sawchuk.

 

[overpass]

- What my first powerplay unit lack in term of offensive abilities, my second unit make it up. I believe that my second PP unit is one of the most gifted offensively in the draft. There was no way I was tiering them apart, but people have to understand that both of my unit will see equal ice-time on the powerplay.

If you say that my first powerplay is a poor one in term of offensive abilties, which I have to give you is not the greatest, I will say that your second unit of Nolan - Shadrin - Palffy is miles away in term of offensive abilities than my Conacher-Keats-Hyland trio. Overall, I believe I have the more apt powerplay.

My second unit for this series is Gilbert-Nolan-Palffy, with Kharlamov-Primeau-Crosby on the first unit.

Your second powerplay is certainly strong, but I think your decision to separate your top talent will hurt your power play.

Lionel Conacher was rarely a top-offensive player?

On second thought, rarely is an overstatement, but my statement was not misinformed. At times he was a fine offensive player. But for three straight years in the middle of his prime Conacher was a non-factor offensively. He's inconsistent at the very least.

Quackenbush was one of the more offensively involved defenseman of his ERA.

Yes. But his era was weak on offensive defencemen. In the late 40s, when Quackenbush was at his best, defencemen scoring totals relative to forwards were very low, and a new generation of defenders entering the league shot past their scoring totals. In any case, Quackenbush is no better offensively than Egan, who is on my second PP unit.

Again, I don't know why you're saying that defenseman in these days were not ''as involved'' offensively.

For one, defenceman point totals are lower relative to forward point totals than in more recent years. (Note: I'm only saying this about Quackenbush's era, I'm not sure about Conacher's). I don't think this is a very controversial statement

And can you imagine Roy Conacher-Duke Keats-Harry Hyland-Bill Quackenbush and Jimmy Thomson playing against Si Griffis but especially Pat Egan?

Eh, I'll get the matchups I want sometimes as well. Kharlamov-Fedorov-Gilbert-Howe-Kasatonov against Art Duncan and Bucko MacDonald sounds good to me.

Yes, purely one against one, Bauer would be a good matchup for Kharlamov, but believe me if those lines match up together, Kharlamov will have hands full with Woody Dumart but especially Milt Schmidt, that will probably have to take a step offensively, but will be sure to counter Kharlamov and take their chances on the counter-attack. Kharlamov will also have ot pass through a second layer with one of the greatest defensive defenseman of his ERA in Cy Wentworth and a third layer with one of the greatest goaltender of All-Time in Terry Sawchuk.

But of course, if you key on Kharlamov too much, he can make a beautiful pass to Fedorov or Gilbert.

 

[EagleBelfour]

My second unit for this series is Gilbert-Nolan-Palffy, with Kharlamov-Primeau-Crosby on the first unit.

Your second powerplay is certainly strong, but I think your decision to separate your top talent will hurt your power play.

I don't think it will, especially since I will put emphasis on both my powerplay getting about equal icetime.

Keith Primeau on a first PP unit is probably one of or the worst offensive player to get a shot on a first unit in the draft, while Rod Gilbert is a nice player to have on the second wave, Nolan and Palffy are very subpar powerplay players. There's no doubt in my mind my powerplay will have a greater success than yours.

On second thought, rarely is an overstatement, but my statement was not misinformed. At times he was a fine offensive player. But for three straight years in the middle of his prime Conacher was a non-factor offensively. He's inconsistent at the very least.

When you look more closely into Lionel Conacher's career, you find out that Conacher was battling alcoolism for a part of his career. Around 1930 when he came back to Montreal, he decided to put his life in order and put emphasis on his hockey career and his family. He then became a more rounded hockey players, who put out solid performances night in and night he became an even better leader. Fact is, either you can Lionel Conacher was inconsistent or not for a part of his career, he still manage to put up these numbers, and became one of the primary offensive force from the blueline of the league, while maintaining his solid contribution defensively and being one of the most physical defenseman of his time. For me it's obvious that he will help me greatly on the powerplay. He will help on the PK too, as he's known as one of the greatest shot blocker of his ERA too.

Yes. But his era was weak on offensive defencemen. In the late 40s, when Quackenbush was at his best, defencemen scoring totals relative to forwards were very low, and a new generation of defenders entering the league shot past their scoring totals. In any case, Quackenbush is no better offensively than Egan, who is on my second PP unit.

No, Quackenbush is a better offensive defenseman than Pat Egan. Although Egan was a very good offensive defenseman, he was able to notch that many points by being careless in his own zone: Egan is known to being one of poorest defensive defenseman of the NHL at the time. All the while, especially in Boston, Quackenbush was the foundation of the Bruins defense. He was playing first PP, first PK and had to a tremendous job defensively at the same time.

To answer the second part of your question, Quackenbush played from 1943 to 1956. While he was extremely constant in his performances years in and years out, he still put out 3 of his best 4 offensive seasons in the 1950's, facing defenseman like Red Kelly, Doug Harvey, Bill Gadsby and my own Jimmy Thomson. That's one of the strongest group of defenseman ever playing against each other, the opposite of weak.

Eh, I'll get the matchups I want sometimes as well. Kharlamov-Fedorov-Gilbert-Howe-Kasatonov against Art Duncan and Bucko MacDonald sounds good to me.

Two things, first of all Art Duncan and Bucko McDonald is my THIRD pairing defenseman while Si Griffis and Pat Egan is your SECOND pairing defenseman. Even then, my third duo is mostly better defensively than your second. Second of all, with big time loggers like Bill Quackenbush, Lionel Conacher and Jimmy Thomson on my team, my third pairing will see few shifts in a game; my first two duos should play about 50 minutes a game. I would say that Duncan will see more ice-time on the PP, as he's known as one of the greatest offensive defenseman of his generation, and Bucko McDonald will see more icetime on the PK, as he's known as one of the greatest shot-blocker of his time.

 

[MXD]

Nalyd, I'm not really convinced that Wentworth's skating is an absolute necessity to stop Kharlamov : Quackenbush could do this job as well. Bauer vs. Kharlamov is a mismatch, but I'm pretty shore Kharlamov will be effectively contained by Wentworth and Quackenbush.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This matchup is a bit strange, in that both teams are great, but both have a player on the first PP unit who is out of place.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Quackenbush is a better offensive defenseman than Pat Egan. Although Egan was a very good offensive defenseman, he was able to notch that many points by being careless in his own zone: Egan is known to being one of poorest defensive defenseman of the NHL at the time

Althogh Quackenbush is better in his own zone, I have yet to see anything that shows Egan poor defensively. Nothing that says he's good, but what do you have suggesting he was poor or one of the worst defensively of the time?

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Nalyd, I'm not really convinced that Wentworth's skating is an absolute necessity to stop Kharlamov : Quackenbush could do this job as well. Bauer vs. Kharlamov is a mismatch, but I'm pretty shore Kharlamov will be effectively contained by Wentworth and Quackenbush.

Quackenbush would be playing on his off-side of the ice to mark Kharlamov, Wentworth would not.

 

[MXD]

Althogh Quackenbush is better in his own zone, I have yet to see anything that shows Egan poor defensively. Nothing that says he's good, but what do you have suggesting he was poor or one of the worst defensively of the time?

Combo of lack of team success and not always being a Top-2 guy.

Basically, a guy that scored that much goals should have won a bit more during his career, if he was that good, especially considering he wasn't really the go-to guy.

I think Egan disfavourably compares to Glen Harmon "overall", if that makes sense. But Egan was tougher and kinda better offensively.

 

[overpass]

I don't think it will, especially since I will put emphasis on both my powerplay getting about equal icetime.

Keith Primeau on a first PP unit is probably one of or the worst offensive player to get a shot on a first unit in the draft, while Rod Gilbert is a nice player to have on the second wave, Nolan and Palffy are very subpar powerplay players. There's no doubt in my mind my powerplay will have a greater success than yours.

Keith Primeau plays his role well on the power play. He was a key to the Detroit power play in the same role, on a very talented team.

Palffy's a terrific power play player, a good player to have on the second unit.

No, Quackenbush is a better offensive defenseman than Pat Egan. Although Egan was a very good offensive defenseman, he was able to notch that many points by being careless in his own zone: Egan is known to being one of poorest defensive defenseman of the NHL at the time. All the while, especially in Boston, Quackenbush was the foundation of the Bruins defense. He was playing first PP, first PK and had to a tremendous job defensively at the same time.

Egan's defensive game was sacrificed to some degree in his big 1941-42 season, when he and Tommy Anderson were the two best players on a weak Brooklyn team that had 3 regular defencemen. Other than that, what is your source on Egan's defensive game?

Egan's scoring record is every bit as good as Quackenbush's, and he had the hardest shot in the league.

Two things, first of all Art Duncan and Bucko McDonald is my THIRD pairing defenseman while Si Griffis and Pat Egan is your SECOND pairing defenseman.

In defensive situations, Ramsey and Numminen are my second choice. The comparison is appropriate.

 

[Dreakmur]

DETROIT FALCONS

GM: EagleBelfour
Coach: Herb Brooks
Assistant Coach:Father David Bauer

Woody Dumart - Milt Schmidt (C) - Bobby Bauer
Roy Conacher - Duke Keats (A) - Harry Hyland
Harry P. Watson - Phil Goyette - Bobby Rousseau
Ed Sandford - Buddy O'Connor - Harry Oliver

Bill Quackenbush - Jimmy Thomson (A)
Lionel Conacher (A) - Cyclone Wentworth
Art Duncan - Bucko McDonald

Terry Sawchuk
Mike Karakas

VS

RENFREW MILLIONAIRES

GM: overpass
Coach: Billy Reay

Valeri Kharlamov - Sergei Fedorov - Rod Gilbert
Patrik Elias - Sidney Crosby - Ziggy Palffy
Bob Bourne - Keith Primeau - George Armstrong(C)
Simon Gagne - Vladimir Shadrin - Owen Nolan

Mark Howe - Alexei Kasatonov
Si Griffis(A) - Pat Egan
Mike Ramsey(A) - Teppo Numminen

Dominik Hasek
Jean-Sebastien Giguere​

I'll throw in my two cents here, and try to get some debate going....

First Lines:
For the first time in the play-offs, I see Detroit having the better 1st line. Sergei Fedorov just doesn't do it as a 1st line center for me, and Rod Gilbert isn't a 1st line winger wither. Kharlamov is a good 1st liner, but his linemates will really slow him down. While "The Krauts" aren't great offensively, I think they migh actually match the Kharlamov-Fedorov-Gilbert in that regard... and since they completely destroy them in all other areas, I'd give the overall edge to Detroit.

Second Lines:
Detroit's 2nd line is probably my favourite of the draft - they could pass as a weak 1st line! Sidney Crosby, to me, hasn't done enough to warrant 2nd line duty - he has earned a 4th line spot, since he's pretty gritty and well-rounded. Ziggy Palffy is fine as a bargain basement 2nd liner. Elias would be fine as a bargain basement "glue guy". I see this as a very big advantage for Detroit.

Third Lines:
Detroit has a very good 2-way second line. While they aren't elite offensively or defensively, they are very strong at both. Renfew has a really solid 3rd line too. George Armstrong might be one of the best 3rd liners in the draft, and Bob Bourne is a reall quality checker too. Keith Primeau, thought, is just a mediocre 3rd liner. I'd have to give the advantage to Detroit.

First Defense Pair:
Detroit has one of the weaker 1st pairs in the draft - it won't hurt him, but they're pretty mediocre. Mark Howe and Alexei Kasatonov both have great speed and skill, and they'll be able to help create a lot of offense. I'll give the advantage to Renfew.

Second Defense Pair:
With the weak 1st pair, Detroit had to put together a strong 2nd pair... and they put together what is likely the best of the draft. Conacher and Wentworth is just embarrassing as a second unit. I'd give Detroit a pretty big edge here.

Goaltending:
Sawchuk may be one of the "Great Eight", but Hasek is one of the "Big 3".... and might even be #1. Renfew gets the edge here.​

 

[overpass]

I'll throw in my two cents here, and try to get some debate going....

First Lines:
For the first time in the play-offs, I see Detroit having the better 1st line. Sergei Fedorov just doesn't do it as a 1st line center for me, and Rod Gilbert isn't a 1st line winger wither. Kharlamov is a good 1st liner, but his linemates will really slow him down. While "The Krauts" aren't great offensively, I think they migh actually match the Kharlamov-Fedorov-Gilbert in that regard... and since they completely destroy them in all other areas, I'd give the overall edge to Detroit.

Second Lines:
Detroit's 2nd line is probably my favourite of the draft - they could pass as a weak 1st line! Sidney Crosby, to me, hasn't done enough to warrant 2nd line duty - he has earned a 4th line spot, since he's pretty gritty and well-rounded. Ziggy Palffy is fine as a bargain basement 2nd liner. Elias would be fine as a bargain basement "glue guy". I see this as a very big advantage for Detroit.

Third Lines:
Detroit has a very good 2-way second line. While they aren't elite offensively or defensively, they are very strong at both. Renfew has a really solid 3rd line too. George Armstrong might be one of the best 3rd liners in the draft, and Bob Bourne is a reall quality checker too. Keith Primeau, thought, is just a mediocre 3rd liner. I'd have to give the advantage to Detroit.

First Defense Pair:
Detroit has one of the weaker 1st pairs in the draft - it won't hurt him, but they're pretty mediocre. Mark Howe and Alexei Kasatonov both have great speed and skill, and they'll be able to help create a lot of offense. I'll give the advantage to Renfew.

Second Defense Pair:
With the weak 1st pair, Detroit had to put together a strong 2nd pair... and they put together what is likely the best of the draft. Conacher and Wentworth is just embarrassing as a second unit. I'd give Detroit a pretty big edge here.

Goaltending:
Sawchuk may be one of the "Great Eight", but Hasek is one of the "Big 3".... and might even be #1. Renfew gets the edge here.

First, let me say that I appreciate the contribution to the debate.

I think you are consistently low on my top-six forwards. Sergei Fedorov is a legit first liner - great defensively, and has all the tools to play with great players. His regular season stats aren't reflective of his ability, as he dogged it in the regular season for much of his career, and he was always the best player on his line. Look how he played in the playoffs to see his true talent. His situation here is more similar to his junior days in Russia, when he played with Bure and Mogilny.

Sidney Crosby is a case where peak-career preferences come into play. But he's been arguably the best player in the world over the past three years, and has led all players in scoring since the lockout, including playoffs.

Patrik Elias is another player who is better than his scoring finishes. He excelled as the best forward on a great defensive team, playing a defensive game very well. You touched on his "glue guy" attributes, and I'd add that he should be able to step up his scoring in a more wide open system if necessary.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think you are consistently low on my top-six forwards. Sergei Fedorov is a legit first liner - great defensively, and has all the tools to play with great players. His regular season stats aren't reflective of his ability, as he dogged it in the regular season for much of his career, and he was always the best player on his line. Look how he played in the playoffs to see his true talent. His situation here is more similar to his junior days in Russia, when he played with Bure and Mogilny.

I'll give you that - Fedorov was pretty good in the play-offs. Was he better than Schmidt? If he is better, how much does that close the gap?

Sidney Crosby is a case where peak-career preferences come into play. But he's been arguably the best player in the world over the past three years, and has led all players in scoring since the lockout, including playoffs.

Crosby is closing in on being a 2nd liner in the ATD, but I'm not sure he's there yet. With his grit, he can be a good 4th liner, but if he's on a 2nd line, he needs better than average wingers.... you have below average wingers.

Patrik Elias is another player who is better than his scoring finishes. He excelled as the best forward on a great defensive team, playing a defensive game very well. You touched on his "glue guy" attributes, and I'd add that he should be able to step up his scoring in a more wide open system if necessary.

I really like Elias. I think he plays a very similar game to Henrik Zetterberg.

Just like Crosby, Elias can be a 2nd liner if he's with 2 better than average guys.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Votes for the division finals in the ATD are due by 11:59 P.M. EST on Sunday, December 6. All votes are to be sent to me.

 

[overpass]

I'll give you that - Fedorov was pretty good in the play-offs. Was he better than Schmidt? If he is better, how much does that close the gap?

I'll give this a shot. Fedorov is 5th in playoff points per game over his career (min 100 games). Schmidt is 17th in playoff points per game over his career (min 50 games). Schmidt had a couple of years as a teenager, but if you knock those out he's still only 16th.

I'll admit that's not entirely fair to Schmidt, because he lost his prime years to the war. But my point is not to bury Schmidt but to praise Fedorov. There's reason to believe that Fedorov was more motivated and played harder in the playoffs, his playoffs aren't a statisical fluke. His regular seasons were unimpressive in the late 90s and early 00s, as he felt disrespected by Scotty Bowman and Detroit management. He thought he deserved the star treatment that Steve Yzerman got. But he never let it affect his play in the playoffs.

Fedorov also played his best as the #1 centre on his team. The best hockey he ever played was probably while Steve Yzerman was injured during Fedorov's incredible 1993-94 season.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Fedorov was a pretty good playoff performer.

A couple of things on Schmidt front though.

Actually, Schmidt being 17th in playoff points per game over his career is incredibly good. When playoffs were around the corner, it was Bill Cowley and Roy Conacher that was doing the offensive work, while the Kraut were solely use to play against the opponent top players. When playing against Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, Syl Apps etc ..., being able to put some points on the board is quite an accomplishment.

 

[overpass]

There hasn't been much said about goaltending, but I believe I have an advantage there as well.

Hasek and Sawchuk are both goaltender with incredible peaks. But while we all remember how good Hasek was in his prime, I contend that there is some doubt as to exactly how good Sawchuk was in his peak.

Sawchuk had five great years playing in front of one of the most dominant dynasties of all time. Maybe the only goalies that have played for equally dominant dynasties are Jacques Plante and Ken Dryden. With Gordie Howe, Red Kelly, and Ted Lindsay in their primes, and many other good players, Sawchuk certainly had a lot of help with his league-leading wins and GAA.

After Sawchuk left the dynasty, he was never an elite goaltender again. While there is reason to believe that his play may have declined, it also suggests that he may have trouble being great without a great team.

Sawchuk also has competition issues. There was a particularly weak group of forwards born between 1923 and 1929 - possibly as a result of the war. It was this group of forwards that was in their prime during Sawchuk's peak. Here's a list of the best forwards from each year.

1923: Harry Watson, Gus Bodnar, Gaye Stewart
1924: Cal Gardner
1925: Ted Lindsay, Ted Kennedy, Sid Smith
1926: Bert Olmstead, Don Raleigh
1927: Tod Sloan, Metro Prystai
1928: Gordie Howe, Paul Ronty
1929: Vic Stasiuk, Andy Hebenton, Fleming Mackell

There were a total of 4 forwards born in this 7 year period that were taken in the first 250 picks of this ATD. They are Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, Ted Kennedy, and Bert Olmstead. Of these, Howe and Lindsay were by far the best and Sawchuk only faced them in practice. Sawchuk was playing in a league where his best opposition was past their prime, with the exception of the ageless Maurice Richard.

 

[EagleBelfour]

There hasn't been much said about goaltending, but I believe I have an advantage there as well.

Hasek and Sawchuk are both goaltender with incredible peaks. But while we all remember how good Hasek was in his prime, I contend that there is some doubt as to exactly how good Sawchuk was in his peak.

Sawchuk had five great years playing in front of one of the most dominant dynasties of all time. Maybe the only goalies that have played for equally dominant dynasties are Jacques Plante and Ken Dryden. With Gordie Howe, Red Kelly, and Ted Lindsay in their primes, and many other good players, Sawchuk certainly had a lot of help with his league-leading wins and GAA.

After Sawchuk left the dynasty, he was never an elite goaltender again. While there is reason to believe that his play may have declined, it also suggests that he may have trouble being great without a great team.

Sawchuk also has competition issues. There was a particularly weak group of forwards born between 1923 and 1929 - possibly as a result of the war. It was this group of forwards that was in their prime during Sawchuk's peak. Here's a list of the best forwards from each year.

1923: Harry Watson, Gus Bodnar, Gaye Stewart
1924: Cal Gardner
1925: Ted Lindsay, Ted Kennedy, Sid Smith
1926: Bert Olmstead, Don Raleigh
1927: Tod Sloan, Metro Prystai
1928: Gordie Howe, Paul Ronty
1929: Vic Stasiuk, Andy Hebenton, Fleming Mackell

There were a total of 4 forwards born in this 7 year period that were taken in the first 250 picks of this ATD. They are Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, Ted Kennedy, and Bert Olmstead. Of these, Howe and Lindsay were by far the best and Sawchuk only faced them in practice. Sawchuk was playing in a league where his best opposition was past their prime, with the exception of the ageless Maurice Richard.

Come on now, if I understand well, you take the year the players were born, and extrapolate as to where they should of been in their prime? I don't think anyone is silly enough to buy that as a serious analyst. Unless I read you wrong, but if it's what you really wanted to say, you have some BIG explaining to do.

Terry Sawchku peak was between the season 1050-51 and 1954-55. Here's the competition he had to face:

Maurice Richard, Max Bentley, Milt Schmidt, Ted Kennedy, Roy Conacher, Elmer Lach, Bernard Geoffrion, Bert Olmstead, Jean Béliveau, Sid Smith, Doug Harvey, Bill Gadsby etc ...

The goaltenders he was facing were: Jacques Plante, Gump Worsley, Johnny Bower, Harry Lumley, Turk Broda, Chuck Rayner and Al Rollins.

-------------------

On my list I hav Dominik Hasek #2 and Terry Sawchuk #4. I do think you have a slight edge in goal.