ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[BenchBrawl]

Please.

 

[Dreakmur]

can someone post something about schmidt's defensive play?

i read it here, but nowhere else.

You know what.... I just plowed though all my books expecting to have a dozen quotes for you... and I got nothing

The only thing I can find is a brief quote from Joe Pelletier.

Schmidt was considered to be the ultimate two-way player of his day...the Bruins long time captain took equal pride in the defensive zone

 

[nik jr]

You know what.... I just plowed though all my books expecting to have a dozen quotes for you... and I got nothing

The only thing I can find is a brief quote from Joe Pelletier.

i have read several newspaper reports, though not a huge number, involving schmidt, and i have not seen his defensive ability mentioned. his playmaking, speed, grit are mentioned often, as well as his spectacular plays.

i have read reports that he has been moved to D.

i am sure i could find some good things, but i don't see much to give him the reputation as a great defensive F.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He's was below average in his defensive zone, even in his prime. When you take into an ATD context, you definitely need to support him with a stelwart defensive defenseman (and there's throng of them in the first 6 or so round).

That is true of any rushing defenseman.

 

[EagleBelfour]

can someone post something about schmidt's defensive play?

i read it here, but nowhere else.

Quickly scanning through my old biography of Schmidt:

- Named the best all-around player of the 1940's by Ultimate Hockey

Thanks to the memories of the decreasing old time fans, writers and most importantly on ice peers, Schmidt is still recognized as one of the greatest players in NHL history.

Schmidt was considered to be the ultimate two-way player of his day, a Trottier or Steve Yzerman of the 1940s. He was small but determined. He was a strong skater and clever puck distributor but also a great finish. As beautiful as he was to watch on the offense, the Bruins long time captain took equal pride in the defensive zone, and was not afraid to get his nose dirty.

- It's also widely know that the ''Krauts'' were the line who was assign defensive duty against the other team best line in the playoffs. You can catch that in the Trail of the Stanley Cup (I didn't owned the book when I did this bio)

I think you could very well make a claim that Nighbor as an edge defensively on Nighbor. My memory is fuzzy a bit on Schmidt though, since I've research him years ago. I think you would find more quotes on his defensive abilities as a unit, praising the 'Krauts'.

Comparing Coffey to Richard, who was known for circling at the blueline waiting for an outlet pass is...a little bit absurd, Eagle. We'll discuss this a little bit more later.

This is a classic "having it both ways" argument. Why did Coffey have more opportunities to make defensive plays? Because of his listed position on the lineup card? There are 60 minutes in a hockey game, and in those 60 minutes every player makes a certain number of offensive and defensive plays. Paul Coffey, as a defenseman, produced on the same offensive level as many hall of fame forwards. Criticism of his defensive game is perfectly valid, but not to the point that we're comparing him to Maurice Richard or really any forward. Coffey was an imperfect defenseman...yes, but he made a ton of good defensive plays. A forward who scored like Coffey and made as many defensive plays as him would have a legitimate claim to being the greatest 2-way forward of all time.

Again: if Coffey and Trottier score the same number of points and Coffey makes more defensive plays, isn't he contributing more to his team winning? And seriously...if you think that Paul Coffey was worse defensively than any forward, you've got a debate on your hands. By the standards of a forward (which are the standards by which we judge him offensively), Coffey was a world-class defensive player.

Considering the clear and large effect Coffey's presence had on the scoring of Gretzky, Lemieux and one other ATD calibre center (I will demonstrate this all a bit later, though it is well-known), there is certainly a good argument for taking Coffey, as he's not only scoring his own points, but increasing the output of his forwards by quite a bit.

- I'm sorry, it was a poor comparision. That's the problem when we're only 40 pick through the process. All the defenseman I could think of are not selected yet (and won't be for a while). Coffey is the only defenseman taken that is under the 'above average' line. He's actually below-average. And considering the ATD context, he's more than 'below-average'.

- Point taken. I agree to a certain extent to this. It's definitely astonishing the offensive that Coffey could generate. However, it definitely helped him more than hurt him to be surrounded by the best offensive minded talent of All-Time (Which I fully understand he was part of). In the defensive zone, Coffey was better defensively than Trottier, true. But if we give credit for Coffey for creating offense in the defensive and neutral zone, I would give credit to Trottier for his great defensive play in the neutral and offensive zone, which exceeded Coffey.

- I'll wait to see the argumentation on that before judging. You're basically saying you would take Paul Coffey over the like of Brad Park, Viacheslav Fetisov and Larry Robinson, which I definitely disagree. But I'll respond when

(Just want to reiterate that Coffey outside the Top-40 is a very fine pick, but I believe he would be a bad pick in the Top-30)

Everybody knows Richard was waiting for the Harvey feed.

I'm a Montreal Canadiens fan , a proud Quebecois and I think Richard is SLIGHTLY overrated.

And to the people not living to the beat of Montreal as I am since I'm born , strangely , there's a lot more Richard and Lafleur fanatics than Béliveau for some reasons even if everybody respect him.There's a couple of stupid young people that hate Lafleur because he has a tendency to rightfully bash the habs for the past few years but except that everybody is crazy about this guy , especially people that were there in the 70s , they deeply loves him.Richard is a legend.But I rarely hear someone being crazy about Gros Bill.He probably wasn't as thrilling.

You should know that Richard biggest contribution happened outside the hockey rink (Not that intended to do so). That's why he's a legend. When Richard was a (quite poor) analyst for TQS in the 80's, people was making fun of him and his 'legendary' status was not as brilliant. As he got sick and died, his aura of a true legend sparkled again.

Guy Lafleur is one of the best player of All-Time and the most exciting of the 70's. The population in general is still young enough to have watch him play.

Most people who saw Jean Beliveau are very old or already dead. However, I would argue that his 'aura' as a legend is stronger than the one of Lafleur. When he'll eventually die, I would be shock if he dosn't get the same treatment as Richard (National funeral, etc...)

That is true of any rushing defenseman.

Except Bobby Orr, Eddie Shore and Red Kelly, I'll agree. But that's why those players are selected later than their offensive input alone are giving. Paul Coffey is the first of those 'rushing defenseman', below average defensively taken (and very deserdly so). He was selected as one of the best 45 players of All-Time, even considering his defensive deficiency, which just show how good he was. I like the pick, I really do! But I can't wrap my head around taking Coffey over the far, far well more rounded defenseman like Robinson, Fetisov and Park.

 

[BenchBrawl]

]



You should know that Richard biggest contribution happened outside the hockey rink (Not that intended to do so). That's why he's a legend. When Richard was a (quite poor) analyst for TQS in the 80's, people was making fun of him and his 'legendary' status was not as brilliant. As he got sick and died, his aura of a true legend sparkled again.

Guy Lafleur is one of the best player of All-Time and the most exciting of the 70's. The population in general is still young enough to have watch him play.

Most people who saw Jean Beliveau are very old or already dead. However, I would argue that his 'aura' as a legend is stronger than the one of Lafleur. When he'll eventually die, I would be shock if he dosn't get the same treatment as Richard (National funeral, etc...)

.

You're wrong , at my age , I talked to lots of old people that saw Béliveau , especially when I was 7-18 years old , they weren't THAT old.There's also lots of younger people than Beliveau that watched Beliveau.Lafleur is a bigger star than Béliveau in Montreal , that's pretty much a fact.They're both star , they're both enormously respected and loved , but the love for Lafleur is more ''psychotic''.The fact is , lots of people from Béliveau's era loves Lafleur more and they all say he was the best between the 2.I know it's not popular around here but those people saw every watchable game and my ''sample size'' is surprisingly big because I like to talk to old people about hockey since I'm 3 years old so the count is quite high for Lafleur among them.I'm not stating an opinion here , just saying what I've heard , now how much weight you want to put into it is your call , i'm just sharing

 

[EagleBelfour]

In my part of town, most will agree that Beliveau was better than Lafleur. I think it's a matter of opinion.

 

[BenchBrawl]

In my part of town, most will agree that Beliveau was better than Lafleur. I think it's a matter of opinion.

It's possible , my feeling among people who saw both is Béliveau is the one they respect the most , but Lafleur is the one they truly love.Montreal really likes exciting player because of Richard I guess , which explains the ''love affair'' with xxxxxxx ( im guilty myself ) .Lafleur was certainly the most exciting player who ever wore a habs jersey , maybe even a NHL jersey.

 

[Dreakmur]

I have stoneberg's list, but I'm off to bed soon. Can anyone take his list off my hands?

 

[Sturminator]

Luckily then when you have Coffey's speed, transition ability and long pass ability, you generally aren't in your zone much.

Coffey was no where near as bad defensively as people make him out to be. Not to say he was outstanding (and being in the company he is in this draft so far makes it stand out a bit more) but seriously he gets beat on these boards pretty unfairly by a crowd, the majority of which, never even saw him in his prime.

I think the embarassing end of Coffey's career is the biggest reason for this strange perception of him. Articles like this one are much better remembered by most posters around here than the glowing stuff that was printed about Coffey during his prime. I mean...look at this:

PHILADELPHIA For these reasons: for having a veteran voice in the dressing room, for his four Stanley Cup rings, for having the skating and puckhandlng ability to make the transition from defense to offense, the Flyers acquired defenseman Paul Coffey.

For these reasons: for his unwillingness to take a hit, for the hockey mileage on his 36-year-old body, for his minus-2 in Game 1 and minus-3 in last night's Game 2 of these Stanley Cup Finals, Detroit coach xxxxxxxxxxx all but drove Coffey to the airport in his eagerness to trade him out of town.

Ouch. At it's true: the latter part of Coffey's career was pretty disgraceful, and he was often an ugly player once he lost his wheels. Because he gambled so much, Coffey's recovery speed was a big part of his game. Once that went, he really should have hung 'em up. If Paul had retired after his years in Detroit, I think his reputation around here would be a lot better.

I definitely agree that Coffey needs the right kind of team around him, though. You do need to tweak your style a bit to accomodate what Coffey does best, and maybe that was the problem his ATD teams had in the smaller era when he was always a team's second pick, rather than its first. Here is a good article from 1987 about the Coffey trade to Pittsburgh that shows not only how highly Coffey was thought of, but also the problems he had in integrating with teams that weren't built for his style.

Clearly it was the biggest deal since the original six-team NHL expanded to 12 clubs in 1967. Former St. Louis, Montreal and Buffalo coach Scotty Bowman, now a TV color commentator for Hockey Night in Canada, thinks Johnston got the better of Edmonton general manager-coach Glen Sather, comparing Coffey-Lemieux to the Bobby Orr-Phil Esposito tandem that led the Boston Bruins to two Stanley Cups in the early '70s. Calgary general manager Cliff Fletcher, obviously delighted to see Coffey out of his division, says, "There are three impact players in this league, and now Pittsburgh has two of them."

...

When the first-place New York Islanders came to town last Wednesday, however, the Penguins were brought back down to the ice. The Isles, a franchise that does not take shortcuts to success, drubbed them 7-1. Coffey, who has been paired with Finnish defenseman Ville Siren, was minus-5 on the night and looked lost. Not terrible, mind you, lost. He tried to the point of trying too hard. Time after time he passed to a teammate, broke into the open—and received no pass in return. "The give-and-gos were always there in Edmonton," he lamented afterward. Time after time Coffey was caught upice, out of position, with no one covering his rear.

"He's going to have to learn our personnel," said [coach_xxx]. "Which of our players will make that play to him and which won't. And our guys are going to have to learn to look for him more in the neutral zone. We're not used to him yet."

I think that piece puts Coffey's greatness, and the difficulty in accomodating that greatness, pretty well in perspective. Fletcher's quote that Coffey is one of only three impact players in the league (the other two obviously being Gretzky and Lemieux) and then the end of the article about his difficulties in integrating with a terrible Pittsburg team...it all lines up.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Except Bobby Orr, Eddie Shore and Red Kelly, I'll agree. But that's why those players are selected later than their offensive input alone are giving. Paul Coffey is the first of those 'rushing defenseman', below average defensively taken (and very deserdly so). He was selected as one of the best 45 players of All-Time, even considering his defensive deficiency, which just show how good he was. I like the pick, I really do! But I can't wrap my head around taking Coffey over the far, far well more rounded defenseman like Robinson, Fetisov and Park.

Below what average? The average of the defensemen taken in the top 40? Ok. Below the average of the league he actually played in? No way.

He was encouraged to play a certain way because that was what the Oilers were built to do.

I can guarantee you every one of those guys was covered for while they rushed. You can't be in two places at once despite the popular notion around here about some players.

I don't care if everyone around here sees Bobby Orr as Jesus (I admit it was close).. rushing defensemen (even Orr) do take risks and get caught sometimes.. that is the nature of the game when you're generating that level of offense from a defenseman.

Is Bobby Orr better defensively than Paul Coffey - absolutely by miles. Is Coffey as bad as everyone says? No. With his speed he was generally able to catch back up even if he was caught.. just like Orr was able to because of his skating.

XXXXXXX was the guy holding the fort for Coffey and even he says that Coffey didn't make it that hard on him. And when you judge the results, I'd have to agree.

The difference between those more well rounded guys and Coffey is that Coffey will make every player around him better moreso than Robinson, Fetisov, Park.

The guy was a genius at transitioning with a long outlet pass or with his speed on a rush.

 

[EagleBelfour]

It's possible , my feeling among people who saw both is Béliveau is the one they respect the most , but Lafleur is the one they truly love.Montreal really likes exciting player because of Richard I guess , which explains the ''love affair'' with xxx ( im guilty myself ) .Lafleur was certainly the most exciting player who ever wore a habs jersey , maybe even a NHL jersey.

God, you'll never learn!

Guy Lafleur, alongside Richard, were certainly the most exciting player to wear a Habs jersey, but that guy Bobby Orr, was pretty exciting too

On the overall discussion, I guess we'll agree to disagree. I know I'll be a very, very sad man when Mr.Beliveau will pass away. When I read he was transported in urgency to the hospital a couple of months ago, I felt literally sick.

 

[BenchBrawl]

God, you'll never learn!

Guy Lafleur, alongside Richard, were certainly the most exciting player to wear a Habs jersey, but that guy Bobby Orr, was pretty exciting too

On the overall discussion, I guess we'll agree to disagree. I know I'll be a very, very sad man when Mr.Beliveau will pass away. When I read he was transported in urgency to the hospital a couple of months ago, I felt literally sick.

At his age it will come sooner than later unfortunately , but he had a great life.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think the embarassing end of Coffey's career is the biggest reason for this strange perception of him. Articles like this one are much better remembered by most posters around here than the glowing stuff that was printed about Coffey during his prime. I mean...look at this:



Ouch. At it's true: the latter part of Coffey's career was pretty disgraceful, and he was often an ugly player once he lost his wheels. Because he gambled so much, Coffey's recovery speed was a big part of his game. Once that went, he really should have hung 'em up. If Paul had retired after his years in Detroit, I think his reputation around here would be a lot better.

I definitely agree that Coffey needs the right kind of team around him, though. You do need to tweak your style a bit to accomodate what Coffey does best, and maybe that was the problem his ATD teams had in the smaller era when he was always a team's second pick, rather than its first. Here is a good article from 1987 about the Coffey trade to Pittsburgh that shows not only how highly Coffey was thought of, but also the problems he had in integrating with teams that weren't built for his style.



I think that piece puts Coffey's greatness, and the difficulty in accomodating that greatness, pretty well in perspective. Fletcher's quote that Coffey is one of only three impact players in the league (the other two obviously being Gretzky and Lemieux) and then the end of the article about his difficulties in integrating with a terrible Pittsburg team...it all lines up.

I think you're right. The fact that he faded so badly his last few years really tainted people's perception of how amazing he was in his prime.

Kind of like XXXXXXX, everyone remembers the shell and forgets he was not always like that.

You put Coffey with anything resembling an all star center during his prime and then look out.

 

[Dreakmur]

How many undrafted players are we going to name here?

Seriously, it's getting rediculous!

 

[BenchBrawl]

How many undrafted players are we going to name here?

Seriously, it's getting rediculous!

debates will do that to you

 

[BraveCanadian]

How many undrafted players are we going to name here?

Seriously, it's getting rediculous!

Whoops.

Yeah, I guess those Hart trophy winners really do fly under the radar and we wouldn't want to tip anyone off.



It really is kind of bluediculous!

 

[Sturminator]

Point taken. I agree to a certain extent to this. It's definitely astonishing the offensive that Coffey could generate. However, it definitely helped him more than hurt him to be surrounded by the best offensive minded talent of All-Time (Which I fully understand he was part of). In the defensive zone, Coffey was better defensively than Trottier, true. But if we give credit for Coffey for creating offense in the defensive and neutral zone, I would give credit to Trottier for his great defensive play in the neutral and offensive zone, which exceeded Coffey.

Thank you for acknowledging that. I'm not really sure what you mean by Trottier's "defensive play in the offensive zone". I guess you mean forechecking, in which case, I fully agree with you. In the neutral zone, Coffey broke up loads of plays from behind with his speed. As a forward, he would have been considered absolutely brilliant at neutral zone backchecking, so I'm not sure I agree with you that Trottier was the better defensive player between the bluelines.

I'll wait to see the argumentation on that before judging. You're basically saying you would take Paul Coffey over the like of Brad Park, Viacheslav Fetisov and Larry Robinson, which I definitely disagree.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying. Although I am a big fan of his, I have Bryan Trottier in the group of centers that includes Nighbor, Sakic, Schmidt and Lalonde, and below the level of Morenz, Clarke and Esposito. Just to put my statements in context. As far as comparing Coffey to Robinson and Fetisov...if I had the choice, I'd take either of the other defensemen when starting my team, not because they were necessarily better in an absolute sense, but because they are much more conventional and easier to build around. Coffey vs. Park, Chelios, Pilote and all of the other "next tier" defensemen...that one's much harder. I think his career and certainly his peak was probably better than that group of guys, but he's still the most difficult of the bunch to properly use from an ATD perspective. We'll see what kind of pieces I am able to put around him.

As far as the Coffey / Cyclone Taylor comparison, we will revisit that discussion, but much later. I have my reasons for wanting to wait.

 

[Dreakmur]

Now if we can just get those undrafted coaches out of Sturm's post, we'll be all set for now

 

[EagleBelfour]

Below what average? The average of the defensemen taken in the top 40? Ok. Below the average of the league he actually played in? No way.

He was encouraged to play a certain way because that was what the Oilers were built to do.

I can guarantee you every one of those guys was covered for while they rushed. You can't be in two places at once despite the popular notion around here about some players.

I don't care if everyone around here sees Bobby Orr as Jesus (I admit it was close).. rushing defensemen (even Orr) do take risks and get caught sometimes.. that is the nature of the game when you're generating that level of offense from a defenseman.

Is Bobby Orr better defensively than Paul Coffey - absolutely by miles. Is Coffey as bad as everyone says? No. With his speed he was generally able to catch back up even if he was caught.. just like Orr was able to because of his skating.

xxx was the guy holding the fort for Coffey and even he says that Coffey didn't make it that hard on him. And when you judge the results, I'd have to agree.

The difference between those more well rounded guys and Coffey is that Coffey will make every player around him better moreso than Robinson, Fetisov, Park.

The guy was a genius at transitioning with a long outlet pass or with his speed on a rush.

- Paul Coffey is by a good margin the worst defenceman in his zone taken so far in this draft? Can we agree on this?

- I have read on Coffey, I've watched a dozen and more games of Coffey with the Oilers. I'm old enough to have saw the post-Edmonton career.

- I won't try to pretend I know more than I do on Paul Coffey and his time with the Oilers. I'm always willing to hear a good argument and change my mind. If I understand what you're writing BC, is that in his tenure with the Oilers (7 years), Coffey was an above-average defensive defenceman compare to his pear, right? If that's the case, Paul Coffey time in Edmonton is almost comparable to Red Kelly tenure with the Red Wings (Coffey better offensively, Kelly even better defensively). Kelly's legacy goes on with the Leafs, while Coffey legacy goes on with Pittsburgh and Detroit. Which mean that in the end, Kelly probably have a slight advantage on Coffey, but both are Top-20 players of All-Time.

 

[DoMakc]

I have stoneberg's list, but I'm off to bed soon. Can anyone take his list off my hands?

do you live in Australia too? You can send me his list

 

[BraveCanadian]

People are correct that you have to surround Coffey with the right talent to make the most of him. He is kind of like Esposito that way. However, if you surround him properly his upside is absolutely huge - also like Espo.

I always say it is no coincidence that Gretzky, Lemieux and XXXXX all had their best seasons with Coffey feeding them the puck and gaining the zone on the powerplay etc.


From SIvault:

---
Coffey is often criticized—and sometimes booed in his home rink—for playing like a blitz-crazed free safety, abandoning traditional stay-at-home defense for chancy forays into the offensive zone. Still, Coffey gets more than he gives as his +52 rating for the regular season suggests. Besides, as [coach] says, "We built this team around speed and offense. Paul gives us both."

"Maybe Paul's style wouldn't be right for some teams, but it's perfect for us," says Gretzky, who credits Coffey for much of his success. "Paul can make that long breakout pass so I can stay up a little higher in our zone. And I know he's going to be skating up just behind the play, so if [right wing] and [left wing] are covered, I've got Paul as another option."

However, as he slumped onto a bench in the Oiler dressing room after a practice last week, Coffey looked and sounded weary of having to defend his style of play. "Since I was a Peewee, people have said I'm too offensive-minded," he said. "But that's my role here. Look, XXXXXXX's a good defensive defenseman on a good defensive team. I'm a good offensive defenseman on a good offensive team. Does that make him better?"
---

Coffey was more a rover than a defenseman but I don't think anyone can argue with the results in the right environment. He just needs to be put in the right environment and turned loose.

 

[seventieslord]

Taking points away from a guy who miss games because of war is like taking points away from Lemieux because of cancer.

Thing is, even if you optimistically credit Schmidt with his usual 5th-10th-place finishes for those seasons, he's still the weakest offensively of that bunch.

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

But we already do take points away from Lemieux because of cancer, .

NO WE DON'T

how long do you think Mario had cancer for?

In fact, the year in which he had Cancer is one of his biggest resume-building years. To my knowledge, no one says "well, he only played 60 games that year, not 84" and to GMs like you, it's still a 1st place finish regardless.

-I would say that fighting in a world war for three years takes it's tool on the body just as much as playing hockey

I was gonna ask, "but did he even really fight?" but Sturm answered that one for me.

I saw my handle mentioned in the last draft thread and figured I should say something. Sorry, as I know the draft thread probably isn't the best place.

I have lurked these various drafts for four years now and it has been a real pleasure for certain. Aside from the bond I share with my father over hockey, these drafts have probably grown my love for the game more than anything else.

I know it's just a fun hobby on an internet message board, but you guys are a real service to the game. I sincerely thank you for taking the time to partake in these drafts.

I appreciate that.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Thank you for acknowledging that. I'm not really sure what you mean by Trottier's "defensive play in the offensive zone". I guess you mean forechecking, in which case, I fully agree with you. In the neutral zone, Coffey broke up loads of plays from behind with his speed. As a forward, he would have been considered absolutely brilliant at neutral zone backchecking, so I'm not sure I agree with you that Trottier was the better defensive player between the bluelines.



Actually, that's not what I'm saying. Although I am a big fan of his, I have Bryan Trottier in the group of centers that includes Nighbor, Sakic, Schmidt and Lalonde, and below the level of Morenz, Clarke and Esposito. Just to put my statements in context. As far as comparing Coffey to Robinson and Fetisov...if I had the choice, I'd take either of the other defensemen when starting my team, not because they were necessarily better in an absolute sense, but because they are much more conventional and easier to build around. Coffey vs. Park, Chelios, Pilote and all of the other "next tier" defensemen...that one's much harder. I think his career and certainly his peak was probably better than that group of guys, but he's still the most difficult of the bunch to properly use from an ATD perspective. We'll see what kind of pieces I am able to put around him.

As far as the Coffey / Cyclone Taylor comparison, we will revisit that discussion, but much later. I have my reasons for wanting to wait.

- You don't need to thank me for acknowledging any of your points. I don't have an agenda for or against anyone. I'm just trying to understand and learn new things. When I'm right, I'm right and when I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

- Yes, forechecking is part of a good defence in the offensive zone. You can also break passes in the offensive zone. My point was more that if you give credit for the offense Coffey bring outside the offensive zone, you have to at least give credit for the defensive play of Trottier outside the defensive zone.

- I actually agree with pretty much everything you say on the 2nd paragraph, and that's pretty much my view on Coffey as well. I think the comment on Trottier threw me off, thinking you would take Coffey in the Mid-20's. But talking of Trottier, I've just been recently convince that he deserve his mid-20's position, and that he was a superior player to Mike Bossy by a good enough margin to have them more than 5 position apart. I'm ready to hear, again, an argument against him. Damn, it's a never ending story!

- Again, looking forward to see a Taylor/Coffey comparison.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Thing is, even if you optimistically credit Schmidt with his usual 5th-10th-place finishes for those seasons, he's still the weakest offensively of that bunch.

I acknowledge those years and agree with your statement.