I rate Gonchar clearly above Karlsson in defence. Karlsson at his best is maybe as good or possibly even better than Gonchar defensively, but he’s been at that level so rarely. Overall Gonchar was better without the puck. Much better size and positioning in front of his net. Defensive stick was just as good and he used it better because of his positioning. Karlsson was more valuable once he got the puck because of his ability to skate it out, but Gonchar passed just as well. And Karlsson got caught up ice more than Gonchar did.
Karlsson needed to be protected with a good partner even more than Gonchar. If he has a weak partner, his pairing just bleeds goals against. Gonchar made Jared Cowen look like a top 4 NHL defenceman for a whole season.
[Gawd. XXX should be here. Three.]
"Soviets" is a banned word?
Since when.
I have only been here the last 18 years. If the yardsticks have been moved, please enlighten me.
Posts like these are worse than mentioning undrafteds in passing. Please stop
"xxx" is a banned word?
Since when.
I have only been here the last 18 years. If the yardsticks have been moved, please enlighten me.
Any of three... are better i was alluding to.... not even directly, many candidates
I never claimed 3 or more were better...
Silly... not 'obtuse'
[Gawd. Three xxx should be here. Three.]
He's always good value because at this point in the draft, GMs are looking for LWs with more established value away from the puck.
Three or four players.. i referred to NO one of them.
Silly,... i suggest a field of 3-4 better players and am jumped on as SPECIFYING WHOM?
There are several undrafteds better than the picked one. I'll stand by this statement and back it up when picks are eventually made. Okay?
I went down the newspapers rabbit hole a little bit on this one.. I think it was overpass who did that previously and found that there is very little description of scoring forwards defensive play in the archives. However, I did find a couple of interesting tidbits that might helps us peg Thompson's intangibles at least in relation to his contemporaries.
Towards the end of the 1936 season I found a couple of sportswriters giving their opinions on the upcoming all star teams.
In the Times Union on 27 Feb 1936 an undrafted was picked with Schriner and Thompson as honorable mentions. The reasoning?
"...it must be said that the selections of Cecil Dillon, Dave Schriner and Paul Thompson have been made only out of deference to their scoring records. Of the three, Thompson comes closest to being a team player, while Schriner is still a hockey player in the making. Of the three, Thompson is also the only one who gives conscious thought to his shots"
@overpass
Will Provost ever fall to the 3rd line where he belongs?
He only twice hit the 20-goal mark, and his playoff scoring rate is worse.
He is the first of several EXCELLENT defensive forwards to come. The question is: Where in the line-up do they belong?
The bolded makes complete sense when thinking about Schriner, but the mention of Dillon is puzzling to me. We have these 2 quotes, one from that same season and the other from early in the following season...
The Leader-Post: 11-2-1935 said:
xxx and Dillon, a pair of the best back-checkers in the league, will hook up with xxx on the third line in addition to emergency duty when the team is short-handed through penalties.
Meriden Record: 11-2-1936 said:
As usual, xxx and Dillon, both superb defensive players, will carry the burden when penalties leave the team short-handed.
I think we as a group often put way too much stock into quotes and newspaper reports from those eras. We’re all guilty of it. Most of the time they are literally the opinion of a single reporter. It would be like someone in 2055 taking the words of Bruce Garrioch as gospel.
But for many players, we also don’t really have a choice. That’s the information given to us, so we no choice but to go with it.
I think we as a group often put way too much stock into quotes and newspaper reports from those eras. We’re all guilty of it. Most of the time they are literally the opinion of a single reporter. It would be like someone in 2055 taking the words of Bruce Garrioch as gospel.
But for many players, we also don’t really have a choice. That’s the information given to us, so we no choice but to go with it.
Portland selects Herb Gardiner (D).
Ouch. He would have looked good as my #4
Portland selects Herb Gardiner (D).
One of the many guys in similar spots.
Of the recent picks, I’m not sure Jimmy Thomson isn’t the best, since he combined a lot of different strengths - good defense, toughness, surprising offense, and playoff success.