ATD 2013 Lineup Assassination Thread - Bob Cole Division

[Nalyd Psycho]

As I said, his team was almost always last in goals against.

When Lloyd Cook took over coaching Vancouver became a very different team where the forwards became significantly more defensively oriented. So in latter years, that would explain the difference.

Also, Lester always had worse goaltending than Seattle and Vancouver.

 

[Sturminator]

Just as an example, Tarasov designed and implimented the 1-2-2 syetem that had 2 forwards, 2 rovers, and 1 defenseman.

Yeah...I don't know that westerners ever really got to see the old 2-2-1 in action. They were definitely not playing such a system by 1972, and I don't think it was because of wholesale changes wrought by Bobrov, though this is possible.

Tarasov and Bobrov were almost opposites in their coaching philosophies.

Yeah, I know, though Bobrov only lasted a couple of years, and Kulagin (who was a disciple of Tarasov's) changed almost nothing about the tactics and composition of the team after taking over in 1974, which suggests that Bobrov was likely running at least something close to Tarasov's system, to begin with. This is hardly conclusive evidence, but as so little can be said about Tarasov through direct observation, I think it is fair to draw inferences in cases like these.

What eveidence do we have that Blake and Patrick successfully implimented varied systems at the top level?

I think TDMM has adequately answered this question. Personnel obviously play a role in the ultimate success or failure of every coaching system, but Blake and Patrick are two guys who won Stanley Cups with distinctly different team styles at various points in their respective careers.

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

Onto Tarasov...insofar as we can divine Tarasov's system from the jumble of Soviet hockey in the years between he and Tikhonov, I would say those (his) teams all share a few characteristics:

- they were not physically aggressive.

- they were puck possession teams, were built to enter the offensive zone either through a break or through quick, careful passes in the neutral zone. When held up in the neutral zone, they did not dump and chase, but rather started moving laterally looking for holes in the defense through which a puckcarrier could skate after a quick pass.

- they were very passive forecheckers, almost never sending more than a single forward deep, and for the most part (Mikhailov and Alexandrov being the most notable exceptions) didn't hit anyone when they got in on the puckcarrier.

- they had great offensive success against classic defensive schemes, but struggled against trapping teams which overloaded the defensive blueline as the Czechs did in 1976-77' during their run of back-to-back world championships.

- they were solid defensively in transition, but suffered from breakdowns when defending against aggressive forechecking/cycling teams, especially those which were good at working the puck quickly back and forth between the forwards and the points.

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

How much of this is a reflection of Tarasov's philosophies and schemes, and how much is the work of his successors? It is impossible to say with certainty, but I personally think those teams were largely the product of Tarasov's system - that is, at least, the prevailing opinion among the European hockey fans I know.

 

[Hobnobs]

Yeah...I don't know that westerners ever really got to see the old 2-2-1 in action. They were definitely not playing such a system by 1972, and I don't think it was because of wholesale changes wrought by Bobrov, though this is possible.



Yeah, I know, though Bobrov only lasted a couple of years, and Kulagin (who was a disciple of Tarasov's) changed almost nothing about the tactics and composition of the team after taking over in 1974, which suggests that Bobrov was likely running at least something close to Tarasov's system, to begin with. This is hardly conclusive evidence, but as so little can be said about Tarasov through direct observation, I think it is fair to draw inferences in cases like these.



I think TDMM has adequately answered this question. Personnel obviously play a role in the ultimate success or failure of every coaching system, but Blake and Patrick are two guys who won Stanley Cups with distinctly different team styles at various points in their respective careers.

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

Onto Tarasov...insofar as we can divine Tarasov's system from the jumble of Soviet hockey in the years between he and Tikhonov, I would say those (his) teams all share a few characteristics:

- they were not physically aggressive.

- they were puck possession teams, were built to enter the offensive zone either through a break or through quick, careful passes in the neutral zone. When held up in the neutral zone, they did not dump and chase, but rather started moving laterally looking for holes in the defense through which a puckcarrier could skate after a quick pass.

- they were very passive forecheckers, almost never sending more than a single forward deep, and for the most part (Mikhailov and Alexandrov being the most notable exceptions) didn't hit anyone when they got in on the puckcarrier.

- they had great offensive success against classic defensive schemes, but struggled against trapping teams which overloaded the defensive blueline as the Czechs did in 1976-77' during their run of back-to-back world championships.

- they were solid defensively in transition, but suffered from breakdowns when defending against aggressive forechecking/cycling teams, especially those which were good at working the puck quickly back and forth between the forwards and the points.

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

How much of this is a reflection of Tarasov's philosophies and schemes, and how much is the work of his successors? It is impossible to say with certainty, but I personally think those teams were largely the product of Tarasov's system - that is, at least, the prevailing opinion among the European hockey fans I know.

I thought it was pretty rare in the O6 to use the dump and chase tactics... Isnt that mainly a product of the talent drain eras?

 

[Sturminator]

I thought it was pretty rare in the O6 to use the dump and chase tactics... Isnt that mainly a product of the talent drain eras?

I only caught the tail end of the O6 era as a little kid, so I'm hardly an expert, but as I understand it, dump and chase/forechecking remained "part of the playbook" of NHL clubs since its introduction in the 1930's. Some lines/teams did it more than others, but there are definitely a number of O6ers who have specific reputations as great forecheckers - Ullman, Pulford, Metz, Klukay, etc. - and dump-ins pretty much go hand-in-hand with forechecking. I think it's safe to assume that yes, O6 teams were dumping the puck into the zone when it suited them.

Before forward passing was allowed in the offensive zone, NHL teams likely played a style similar to that of the 1970's Soviet teams, with lots of lateral movement and drop passing, and then sudden bursts forward by puckcarriers when they got open ice. This style likely found its highest form in the Bread Line circa 1928 when the Rangers won their first Cup. The 1930 - 35 period is sort of a question mark in terms of the prevailing style, though it appears that heavy trapping was en vogue at least during the playoffs. 1935 brought the first really aggressive forechecking scheme, and after two straight years of victory for this system, NHL teams seem to have begun moving more in this direction - that is, playing a more north-south style of hockey where forward movement would simply follow a dump if the blueline couldn't be gained by the puckcarrier on the initial move through the neutral zone.

At the high point of the O6 era there was probably somewhat less dump-and-chase being played at least in Montreal and Detroit simply because these teams had a huge amount of talent, but it appears to have remained a persistent tactic in the NHL since its introduction.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I thought it was pretty rare in the O6 to use the dump and chase tactics... Isnt that mainly a product of the talent drain eras?

I think it was a product of the 1944 rule change that allowed the puck to precede the man into the offensive zone - the famous Red Line that C1958 love talking about. You obviously couldn't dump and chase if the rules didn't allow you to pass the puck forward between zones.

The Production Line was famous for playing a very aggressive dump and chase game, but I'm not sure how widespread dumping and chasing became afterwards.

 

[VanIslander]

Hershey Bears
GMs: VanIslander & Hedberg

coach Art Ross
"...speed, agility, and cunning"

Luc Robitaille - Marcel Dionne - Gordie Howe (C)
Bun Cook -Tommy Dunderdale - Bobby Bauer
Herbie Lewis (A) - Cooney Weiland - Larry Aurie
Rabbit McVeigh - Ron Sutter - Jamie Langenbrunner
Mike Ricci, Slava Bykov, Andrei Khomutov

Mark Howe (A) - Moose Johnson
George McNamara - Larry Murphy
Hamby Shore - Fred Lake
Howard McNamara

Hugh Lehman
Tom Paton
​

 

[markrander87]

Lol good thing the last thing I care about is your opinion on our teams.

Maybe everybody else will like your forwards as much as you do.... but with the divison's worst starting goalie and weakest defense core, as well as a checking line who's best defensive player is Bobby Rousseau, your forwards are going to have to score a hell of a lot of goals.

A team like Mystery Alaskans with basically ZERO secondary scoring....and they plan on using that top line against other teams top lines??


With very little separating our top pairings, my bottom 4 is head and shoulders above your top 4.

I would love to see Savard - Conacher terrorize one of those bottom pairings. Gonchar would end up packing his bags and head over to the KHL.

 

[Dreakmur]

Onto Tarasov...insofar as we can divine Tarasov's system from the jumble of Soviet hockey in the years between he and Tikhonov, I would say those (his) teams all share a few characteristics:

- they were not physically aggressive.

In terms of hitting and fighting, that's true. I think the hitting part had more to do with the players at his disposal, but he definately did discourage fighting and needless rough play.

I think our team reflects that very well. Our tough players are guys like Earl Seibert, Jarome Iginla, and Vic Stasiuk, and they are all guys who didn't engage much in the kind of play Tarasov doesn't like.

Red Sullivan seems to be the only player on our roster that would draw some ire in this area.

- they were puck possession teams, were built to enter the offensive zone either through a break or through quick, careful passes in the neutral zone. When held up in the neutral zone, they did not dump and chase, but rather started moving laterally looking for holes in the defense through which a puckcarrier could skate after a quick pass.

The Soviets were definately puck-possession teams, and that is defiantely one of Tarasov's staples.

We feel this also fits our team well. With a group of very fast and skilled forwards, as well as a mobile and skilled defense core, we're be able to play a good puck-possession game.

Bob Goldham would be the only defenseman who would struggle to play that game, but I think he can just hand it off to Gonchar.

On forward, our top 3 lines are all well-suited to the puck control and carrying game. Only the 4th line seemd to be more suited to a dump-and-chase style.

- they were very passive forecheckers, almost never sending more than a single forward deep, and for the most part (Mikhailov and Alexandrov being the most notable exceptions) didn't hit anyone when they got in on the puckcarrier.

That may be true of later Soviet teams, but Tarasov was a big believer in aggressive puck persuit. He believe initiative won hockey games. One of his quotes about forechecking is in our bio. He said they "hunt in packs".

As discussed above, his teams weren't big on running guys on the forecheck, but that's not the same as puck pressure.

Again, I think this fits well with the players we have, especially the top line.

- had great offensive success against classic defensive schemes, but struggled against trapping teams which overloaded the defensive blueline as the Czechs did in 1976-77' during their run of back-to-back world championships.

Like any team of the same style, they'd struggle against trapping teams, but I think we can count on the coaches in the ATD to be able to adjust their systems. They are the best of the best after all.... and Tarasov is among the best here.

I think we have the skill and speed to do some effective trap-busting.

- are solid defensively in transition, but suffered from breakdowns when defending against aggressive forechecking/cycling teams, especially those which were good at working the puck quickly back and forth between the forwards and the points.

Our defense core is pretty huge, so that is an advantage down low. Seibert, Stuart, Goldham, and Seiling are pretty much huge - likely averaging close to 6'5" if adjuting their sizes for era. Even Gonchar and Liapkin are big guys.

The puck-support from our 2nd and 3rd line centers could be an issue in our end though. Bowie is pretty small, and Turgeon ain't exactly a defensive specialist.

 

[Dreakmur]

A team like Mystery Alaskans with basically ZERO secondary scoring....and they plan on using that top line against other teams top lines??

Here's how my ZERO secondary scoring compares with yours....

2nd Lines:
George Hay - Pierre Turgeon - Jarome Iginla
Harry Watson - Denis Savard - Charlie Conacher

3rd Lines:
Pavol Demitra - Russell Bowie - Vic Stasiuk
Patrick Marleau - Daniel Sedin - Wilf Paiement

With very little separating our top pairings

Here's how they compare:
Hod Stuart - Earl Seibert
Eddie Gerard - Ken Reardon

my bottom 4 is head and shoulders above your top 4.

I had your bottom 4 pegged as one of the worst in the entire draft. I must be in big trouble if they're way better than mine...

Again, here's the comparison...

2nd Pair:
Sergei Gonchar - Bob Goldham
Gennady Tsygankov - Mike Grant

3rd Pair:
Rod Seiling - Yuri Liapkin
Bill Hajt - Lennard Svedberg

I would love to see Savard - Conacher terrorize one of those bottom pairings. Gonchar would end up packing his bags and head over to the KHL.

Hey, Gonchar's no stud in his own zone, but that's why he's paired with Bob Goldham. Gonchar's contribution will come on the score sheet. He's just one small part of my zero secondary scoring.

You should watch the past-his-prime Gonchar this season. He's carrying a huge load for that team right now, and he's one of the main reasons they are still in the play-off picture.

 

[Hobnobs]

I think it was a product of the 1944 rule change that allowed the puck to precede the man into the offensive zone - the famous Red Line that C1958 love talking about. You obviously couldn't dump and chase if the rules didn't allow you to pass the puck forward between zones.

The Production Line was famous for playing a very aggressive dump and chase game, but I'm not sure how widespread dumping and chasing became afterwards.

Yea, Im not saying it never happened and ofc there were lines specializing on it. What I meant was that it wasnt nearly as widespread as it is now. Most O6 games Ive watched is more about getting over the line and try to get a shot at the goalie and then forecheck.

 

[markrander87]

Here's how my ZERO secondary scoring compares with yours....

2nd Lines:
George Hay - Pierre Turgeon - Jarome Iginla
Harry Watson - Denis Savard - Charlie Conacher

3rd Lines:
Pavol Demitra - Russell Bowie - Vic Stasiuk
Patrick Marleau - Daniel Sedin - Wilf Paiement

Was this suppose to change anything? Charlie Conacher has more offensive credentials then those 6 forwards of you combined.

Here's how they compare:
Hod Stuart - Earl Seibert
Eddie Gerard - Ken Reardon



I had your bottom 4 pegged as one of the worst in the entire draft. I must be in big trouble if they're way better than mine...

Again, here's the comparison...

2nd Pair:
Sergei Gonchar - Bob Goldham
Gennady Tsygankov - Mike Grant

3rd Pair:
Rod Seiling - Yuri Liapkin
Bill Hajt - Lennard Svedberg

Again does this change anything? As a whole the top 6 of ours our very close.

My main concern with your team is the amount of responsibility your top line will have. Not only are they going to be looked upon as the main source of offense from your team due to the low level of secondary scoring , they also will be in charge of playing against opposing teams top lines...

How on earth are they going to provide that amount of offense when they are playing against other teams top lines who will have the puck in the Alaskans offensive zone a lot of the time (compared to a 2nd-3rd line)

 

[Dreakmur]

Was this suppose to change anything? Charlie Conacher has more offensive credentials then those 6 forwards of you combined.

Well, let's take a look....

Since Strum's percentage system seems to be the most accepted way of using the percentage method, I'll use his benchmarks.

In all my profiles, I use each players' best 6 season percentages as the way to measure their offensive peaks, so to avoid any thought of my cherry-picking stats, I will stick to the 6 season range here.

Combining the best 6 seasonal scoring percentages of the Watson-Savard-Conacher line, they come out with an very impressive score of 1500. Conacher led the way with 608, followed by Savard with 523, and Watson dragged them down with a 369.

Doing the same with the Hay-Turgeon-Iginla line, they come out with an almost identical score of 1508. Iginla led with 533, followed by Turgeon at 496, and Hay at 479.


I've been known to make errors in some calculations, so for accuracy's sake, here are the percentages I came up with for mark's players:
Denis Savard - 100(1988), 98(1983), 83(1986), 83(1987), 81(1982), 78(1985)
Charlie Conacher - 121(1934), 121(1935), 100(1931), 96(1932), 95(1936), 75(1933)
Harry Watson - 83(1949), 68(1948), 57(1952), 56(1951), 54(1947), 51(1950)

All of my players have these in their profiles.

What does that mean?​

Well, that's an offensive comparison only, but I think it shows that mark's second line is no better offensively than ours.

With Turgeon being softer than Savard, and Watson being quite a bit tougher than Hay, his line brings more toughness. Defensively, I would think our line a little stronger.

 

[Sturminator]

That may be true of later Soviet teams, but Tarasov was a big believer in aggressive puck persuit. He believe initiative won hockey games. One of his quotes about forechecking is in our bio. He said they "hunt in packs".

As discussed above, his teams weren't big on running guys on the forecheck, but that's not the same as puck pressure.

Again, I think this fits well with the players we have, especially the top line.

From what I've seen, the Soviet forwards were aggressive in puck pursuit mainly in the neutral zone. Here is a good example of pack hunting in the neutral zone from the Soviet top line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__ndvuN_zg&t=45m10s

You see Mikhailov skate by Howe and clip him across the hands with his stick (something Boris did a lot and was very good at), and then Kharlamov and Petrov immediately follow up, strip the puck and take it the other way. This kind of play was quite common from those Soviet teams, who often dominated the neutral zone against north american opponents, but it happened much less often in the offensive zone.

Our defense core is pretty huge, so that is an advantage down low. Seibert, Stuart, Goldham, and Seiling are pretty much huge - likely averaging close to 6'5" if adjuting their sizes for era. Even Gonchar and Liapkin are big guys.

The puck-support from our 2nd and 3rd line centers could be an issue in our end though. Bowie is pretty small, and Turgeon ain't exactly a defensive specialist.

It is mainly the Soviet forwards who struggled in the defensive zone. They seemed to generally do a poor job of covering the points, and had problems adjusting to the quick shooting, frenetic style of cycling of which the best NHL teams (like Buffalo, Philly and Montreal) were capable. The biggest reason for this was that those Soviet teams almost always had one forward who was the "high man" and basically didn't support in the defensive zone, at all. This helped the Soviet transition game, obviously, but it caused defensive breakdowns, as well, both in defending the points on the cycle, and in picking up trailers in transition.

Kharlamov was particularly bad about this kind of play, but it happened all over the lineup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V__ndvuN_zg&t=39m10s

What happens here is pretty clear. Mikahilov is playing close to the net as the deep forechecker when there is a turnover, and the Canadians break quickly the other way. Normally, Mikhailov would be one of the forwards responsible for tracking back into the defensive zone and supporting the defensemen, but he is behind the play, which develops on the Soviet left side in the defensive zone, anyway. Petrov does his job supporting the defenseman, and it should be Kharlamov's job to go deep into the zone to defend the trailing Canadian forwards, but he circles indifferently back up towards his own blueline at almost the instant the puck comes free along the boards, leaving a Canadian forward alone in front of the net, which leads to a goal.

This is a classic problem that teams face when their best forechecker and their best backchecker are the same player. I gave mark a hard time about this vis-á-vis his Prentice - MacLeish - Bathgate line last year, and I don't know how many people really followed what I was saying, but there it is.

This kind of play seems to have been a common characteristic of the pre-Tikhonov Soviet teams. How much of this is Kharlamov and how much Tarasov is anybody's guess, but it was a fairly widespread behavior, so I think it had something to do with the system. Tarasov believed in always being on the attack, and it looks like he may have taught his best offensive forwards to cheat.

 

[Dreakmur]

Again does this change anything? As a whole the top 6 of ours our very close.

I wasn't expecting to change your opinion. I was posting that so everybody else could see how our lineups stack up.

My main concern with your team is the amount of responsibility your top line will have. Not only are they going to be looked upon as the main source of offense from your team due to the low level of secondary scoring , they also will be in charge of playing against opposing teams top lines...

Aren't you doing the exact same thing? The only difference is that your line doesn't have the defensive ability to do it effectively.

We'll go deeper into our secondary scoring later. We feel it is very strong, and hopefully, we can show that.

How on earth are they going to provide that amount of offense when they are playing against other teams top lines who will have the puck in the Alaskans offensive zone a lot of the time (compared to a 2nd-3rd line)

Morenz and Joliat are going to create a lot of offensive off the rush and on the counter-attack. Also, the whole point of going power on power is to prevent the other team's top line from spending huge amounts of time in our end.

 

[markrander87]

DREAKMUR

The fact that you are trying to argue that:

George Hay - Pierre Turgeon - Jarome Iginla is equal to
Harry Watson - Denis Savard - Charlie Conacher

is all I needed to see, there really isn't any other point of discussing anything else with you.

 

[Dreakmur]

This kind of play seems to have been a common characteristic of the pre-Tikhonov Soviet teams. How much of this is Kharlamov and how much Tarasov is anybody's guess, but it was a fairly widespread behavior, so I think it had something to do with the system. Tarasov believed in always being on the attack, and it looks like he may have taught his best offensive forwards to cheat.

Aren't you just watching Tikhanov and just assuming things about Tarasov?

 

[Sturminator]

The Soviets were definately puck-possession teams, and that is defiantely one of Tarasov's staples.

We feel this also fits our team well. With a group of very fast and skilled forwards, as well as a mobile and skilled defense core, we're be able to play a good puck-possession game.

Bob Goldham would be the only defenseman who would struggle to play that game, but I think he can just hand it off to Gonchar.

On forward, our top 3 lines are all well-suited to the puck control and carrying game. Only the 4th line seemd to be more suited to a dump-and-chase style.

I agree with this. Your personnel are definitely conducive to playing a puck possession style system, which is fortunate because I don't think Tarasov is really cut out to coach just any kind of team.

 

[Dreakmur]

The fact that you are trying to argue that:

George Hay - Pierre Turgeon - Jarome Iginla is equal to
Harry Watson - Denis Savard - Charlie Conacher

is all I needed to see, there really isn't any other point of discussing anything else with you.

How's this for an argument?

Again, using Sturm's benchmarks....

Denis Savard – 100(1988), 98(1983), 83(1986), 83(1987), 81(1982), 78(1985), 75(1984), 62(1990), 60(1992), 59(1989), 55(1981), 51(1991)

Best 6 Seasons: 523
Next 6 Seasons: 362

Pierre Turgeon – 89(1993), 85(2000), 82(1990), 82(1992), 80(1996), 78(1994), 78(1997), 75(1998), 70(2000), 69(1991), 67(1995), 63(1989), 61(1999), 52(2002)

Best 6 Seasons: 496
Next 6 Seasons: 422

 

[Sturminator]

Aren't you just watching Tikhanov and just assuming things about Tarasov?

Those clips are from the 1974 Summit Series, shortly after Kulagin (who was Tarasov's disciple) replaced Bobrov as head coach of the national team. Tikhonov's system was something closer to what we'd recognize as modern hockey.

 

[Dreakmur]

I agree with this. Your personnel are definitely conducive to playing a puck possession style system, which is fortunate because I don't think Tarasov is really cut out to coach just any kind of team.

We weren't planning to take Tarasov, but as he kept falling, we started to notice that we actually have a team that fits him very well.

It's tough to build a perfect team for him, but I think it's ridiculous to think that one of the best coaches of all time, and one of the best innovators of all time, couldn't make a few tweaks to get the most out of a team.

 

[Dreakmur]

Those clips are from the 1974 Summit Series, shortly after Kulagin (who was Tarasov's disciple) replaced Bobrov as head coach of the national team.

Maybe, but....

Bobrov was the head guy, and not only was he almost opposite to Tarasov, but they hated each other, so I find it very hard to believe he didn't change significant parts of the system.

Even if Kulagin was a Tarasov disciple, he'd have to change things back.

 

[markrander87]

How's this for an argument?

Again, using Sturm's benchmarks....

Denis Savard – 100(1988), 98(1983), 83(1986), 83(1987), 81(1982), 78(1985), 75(1984), 62(1990), 60(1992), 59(1989), 55(1981), 51(1991)

Best 6 Seasons: 523
Next 6 Seasons: 362

Pierre Turgeon – 89(1993), 85(2000), 82(1990), 82(1992), 80(1996), 78(1994), 78(1997), 75(1998), 70(2000), 69(1991), 67(1995), 63(1989), 61(1999), 52(2002)

Best 6 Seasons: 496
Next 6 Seasons: 422

On top of everything else including multiple people who have watched both of them play, newspaper clippings, Savard having almost twice as many all star games played, Turgeons complete lack of anything outside of point finishes which have already been discussed.

Is there really any discussion needed between Conacher and Iggy? As much of a fan I am of him and how much of a good guy, teammate etc.. Charlie Conacher (after skimming the roster page) is the best offensive 2nd liner in this thing by a large margin.

The fact that he has an elite 2nd line center in Savard and then a guy in Watson who can handle the dirty work and allow for those 2 to focus more on offense, makes this the best 2nd line in the league.

If I am missing something, please I encourage other GM's to add to the conversation.

 

[Sturminator]

Maybe, but....

Bobrov was the head guy, and not only was he almost opposite to Tarasov, but they hated each other, so I find it very hard to believe he didn't change significant parts of the system.

It's hard to say, though I have my doubts that Bobrov was much of a coach, at all. I get the strong impression that he was brought in as a replacement because he was a big name and because the apparatchiks wanted to give Tarasov the axe, one way or another. Bobrov only lasted for two seasons, and Kulagin was retained as assistant coach for the duration. Through Kulagin, who was Tarasov's assistant as CSKA for about ten years (meaning he likely spent more time directly working with Tarasov than even Chernyshev) there seems to have been a good deal of continuity in the system, which doesn't differ much from 1972 through 1977, when he was fired quite dramatically during the final period of the last game of the tournament (minutes before losing to the Swedes and handing a second straight IIHF title to the Czechs). The Soviets always knew how to have a good meltdown.

I think it's unlikely that Bobrov changed much in the short time between his hiring and the 1972 series, and what we saw in 1972 is more or less what was still being done at the time Tikhonov took control. It's all somewhat speculative, but I think the 1972-77 Soviet system is basically Tarasov's baby. He is generally credited for what was good in that system; it is hard to see why he shouldn't be credited for its faults, as well.

 

[Dreakmur]

On top of everything else including multiple people who have watched both of them play, newspaper clippings, Savard having almost twice as many all star games played, Turgeons complete lack of anything outside of point finishes which have already been discussed.

Oh, Savard definitely had the better peak, and he's the better player, but let's not pretend there's a huge offensive gap between him and Turgeon. Longevity as an offensive catalyst is something that helps Turgeon.

Is there really any discussion needed between Conacher and Iggy? As much of a fan I am of him and how much of a good guy, teammate etc.. Charlie Conacher (after skimming the roster page) is the best offensive 2nd liner in this thing by a large margin.

Definitely needs to be a discussion!

Conacher had his 5 great seasons where he led the league in goals. That's an amazing peak. It might be one of the best peaks among all wingers in the draft, but what else did he do? Pretty much nothing.

Iginla's 4 best seasons are 1st, 1st, 3rd, and 3rd in goals. Considering league size, competition, and line mates, I don't think it's a bit stretch to say that Iginla's best 4 seasons are close to Conacher's 4 best seasons. His 5th season isn't close to Conacher's. The fact that Iginla was able to remain an impact player for over twice as long as Conacher should hold some weight.

 

[vecens24]

Oh, Savard definitely had the better peak, and he's the better player, but let's not pretend there's a huge offensive gap between him and Turgeon. Longevity as an offensive catalyst is something that helps Turgeon.



Definitely needs to be a discussion!

Conacher had his 5 great seasons where he led the league in goals. That's an amazing peak. It might be one of the best peaks among all wingers in the draft, but what else did he do? Pretty much nothing.

Iginla's 4 best seasons are 1st, 1st, 3rd, and 3rd in goals. Considering league size, competition, and line mates, I don't think it's a bit stretch to say that Iginla's best 4 seasons are close to Conacher's 4 best seasons. His 5th season isn't close to Conacher's. The fact that Iginla was able to remain an impact player for over twice as long as Conacher should hold some weight.

Yeah Conacher's peak is clearly better. But if we do next best seasons after both Iginla and Conacher's five best? Here are their numbers for VsX years above 60:

Iginla vsX: 107, 92, 87, 82, 81, 78, 74, 69, 67, 64, 63, 63

Conacher vsX: 121, 121, 100, 96, 95, 75, 65

So basically what we're talking about is a big peak advantage by these numbers for Conacher. Conacher's top 5 years add up to 533. Iginla's only add up to 449.

Conacher's number basically dwarfs Iginla's. There's no debating this in my mind. Charlie Conacher at his peak was a much better point producer than Iginla was. However Iginla's longevity makes up for it somewhat substantially. Iginla's has seven more years above the 60% threshold, whereas Conacher only has two.

Then there's another question that's floating out there: Why did Conacher only receive Hart consideration in two of these seasons? Conacher has a 2 and a 4 in Hart voting. If someone can answer that, it would be fantastic.

Iginla has received major consideration 4 times. He has a T1, 2, 3, 10 (plus a legitimate 12 and a 15, although given that there were fewer voters in Conacher's day, these two finishes should probably be ousted from this discussion. They mean something for Iginla's longevity, but not for his peak in my view).

This comparison is much closer than mark is willing to admit. I do think Conacher has a slight, but definitive advantage here. But given everything else that Iginla brings besides scoring, it really comes close to evening the playing field here.