ATD#8 Jim Coleman Conference Final: Oakland Seals vs. Nanaimo Clippers

[VanIslander]

The Jim Coleman Conference:

Fourth Round Match-Up



Foster Hewitt Divisional Champion

Oakland Seals

Coaches: Cecil Hart, Tom Gorman
Captain: Wayne Gretzky
Alternates: Valeri Vasiliev, Bruce Stuart

Syd Howe - Wayne Gretzky - Andy Bathgate
Paul Kariya - Bernie Federko - Bruce Stuart
Tom Phillips - Edgar Laprade - Frank Finnigan
Jiri Holik - Jack Adams - Cecil Dillon

Valeri Vasiliev - King Clancy
Si Griffis - Red Horner
Mattias Norstrom - Harry Cameron

Jiri Holocek
Normie Smith

Billy Boucher, George McNamara



vs.


Bob Cole Divisional Champion

Nanaimo Clippers

Coach: Hap Day
Captain: Hap Day
Alternate Captains: Bobby Orr, Lionel Hitchman

Sweeney Schriner - Joe Primeau - Charlie Conacher
Kevin Stevens - Frank Nighbor - Ed Litzenberger
Dean Prentice - Cooney Weiland - Bobby Rousseau
Hec Kilrea - Glen Skov - Eric Nesterenko
Camille Henry

Bobby Orr - Brad McCrimmon
Lionel Conacher - Hap Day
Gilles Marotte - Lionel Hitchman
Viktor Kuzkin

Clint Benedict
Tom Barrasso
Viktor Konovalenko



--------​

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Oakland Seals

PP1: Kariya - Gretzky - Bathgate - Cameron - Clancy
PP2: Howe - Federko - Dillon - Griffis - Vasiliev

PK1: Laprade - Finnigan - Vasiliev - Horner
PK2: Phillips - S. Howe - Griffis - Norstrom

vs.

Nanaimo Clippers

PP1: Schriner - Primeau - C. Conacher - Orr - Rousseau
PP2: K.Stevens - Nighbor - Litzenberger - L. Conacher - Day

PK1: Weiland - Rousseau - Conacher - McCrimmon
PK2: Skov - Nesterenko - Day - Hitchman

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Slight roster change, we're moving Philips up to the 3rd line and Holik down to the 4th line.

Obviously, a lot more details to come in the next few days.

 

[Sturminator]

This should be a doozy of a series. I've got a lot of respect for the team pit has put together here. Some early thoughts on each team's advantages...

Nanaimo's advantages:

- goaltending: I said it a long time ago that I had Benedict in the 8-10 range for goalies all-time and I'm certainly not going to change my tune now. I think Clint Benedict is narrowly better than Turk Broda as the best netminder remaining in these playoffs, which would put Holecek at 3rd best and Lumley in 4th. Jiri Holecek is a very good goalie (and hopefully no longer underrated on this forum) and Normie Smith is clearly a better 1-2 game playoff backup than either of Nanaimo's guys so the gap isn't huge here, but I believe Nanaimo has the advantage in net.

- Frank Nighbor: Nanaimo doesn't have a whole lot of clear personnel advantages in this series, but Nighbor vs. Federko favors the Clippers. As HO and I have pointed out, Bernie Federko was actually an excellent and very underrated playoff performer (not to mention the regular season) and matches Nighbor's offensive abilities, but Nanaimo's second pivot is clearly a much better checker. Federko wasn't a sieve defensively, but comparing him to one of the best defensive forwards of all-time would be foolish.

- Bobby Orr: Any team with Orr has a chance to win any game, anywhere, against anyone. Bobby Orr at his peak is the best hockey player of all-time, in my opinion, including Gretzky. Whether or not Orr is at 100% is another matter...

Oakland's advantages:

I'll begin by saying that the Seals will use the last line change to match first lines straight across when on home ice. Vasiliev - Clancy will remain together with Vasiliev playing the left side and Clancy taking the right, his off wing.

- health: Nanaimo has the most fragile set of high-end players in this draft. Bobby Orr, Charlie Conacher and Kevin Stevens are all serious health risks for a team that has gone through something of a meat grinder on the way to these Conference Finals. I don't have to remind anyone what kind of team murphy sent out against the Clippers for the first six games of Nanaimo's playoff run. Even going into the second round, I would begin questioning whether or not all of Nanaimo's players are at 100%. Boston was a tough team, though not particularly rough or dirty on the whole. Orr and Stevens may have slipped through the 2nd round without aggravating any injuries, but Nick Metz on Charlie Conacher must have been quite a physical confrontation. The Detroit Falcons feature probably the toughest, dirtiest set of forwards in the league, led by Mikita and Schmidt. The Falcons' defensemen aren't as nasty as Edmonton's were, but the from first line to fourth, their forwards are just nasty, and a couple are outright thugs.

If Orr, Conacher and Stevens are playing at 100% it would be a small miracle. Oakland, on the other hand, is arguably the healthiest team in the draft and has played only 12 games to this point in the softest division in the league. Every team gets bumps and bruises during the course of the playoffs, but the Seals are almost certainly the healthiest team in the Conference Finals.

- first unit: Howe - Gretzky - Bathgate - Vasiliev - Clancy is easily a better unit than Shriner - Primeau - Conacher - Orr - McCrimmon, especially considering that Nanaimo's two best players are quite possibly playing hurt. Saying that any unit is "easily better" than one that features Bobby Orr is a bold statement, but it's true, all the same. Why?

To begin with, Syd Howe is a very good backchecker and matches up well against Nanaimo's best forward. Howe will shadow Conacher in transition and then check him off to Vasiliev down low, after which point he will pick up Joe Primeau if Nanaimo is able to set up a cycle. Having a left wing covering a center in the defensive zone is unconventional, but Syd Howe played quite a bit at center so he won't have any trouble picking up his defensive responsibilities. Freeing up Gretzky to play high in the defensive zone (which they often did in Edmonton) is obviously advantageous. There aren't any changes to strategy or special defensive systems here: this is simply Syd Howe's game. At any rate, Conacher is the better of the two players when healthy, but the matchup is favorable to Oakland as our best top-line backchecker is pitted against Nanaimo's best forward. Charlie Conacher will probably outscore Syd Howe in this series, and he'd better if Nanaimo wants to win, because Gretzky and Bathgate will definitely outscore their counterparts.

Why Gretzky and Bathgate will outscore Primeau and Shriner shouldn't require explanation. When the Seals force the matchup, Joe Primeau vs. Wayne Gretzky is the single biggest mismatch of the series by a pretty good margin. Another reason matching first lines plays into Oakland's hands is because Clancy on the right side won't face any large, physical forwards down low. Conacher will match up with Vasiliev in the Oakland zone, which is fine for Oakland, while Shriner and Primeau don't have the muscle to expose Clancy in his own zone. The King is in his element here, guarding fast, non-physical forwards (a role in which he was excellent defensively) and providing offensive support to what is easily the best passing line in the draft. Clancy was exceptional as a goalscorer from the blueline and Gretzky loved to use trailing defensemen in the attack. Gretzky/Clancy is a match made in ATD heaven. Especially taking into account Orr's health concerns, Clancy may actually outscore Nanaimo's #1 defenseman in this series.

Valeri Vasiliev is much better than Brad McCrimmon, who is a decent-skating 2-way second pairing defenseman miscast trying to cover for Orr's rushes and keep up with the five-man offensive unit that Oakland is sending out in this round.

- 4th line: Oakland's 4th line of Holik - Adams - Dillon beats Nanaimo's at every position. While I respect Nanaimo's 4th line as a solid 2-way unit, it simply lacks the talent of the Seals' 4th line.

- special teams: Oakland has the better end of the special teams matchups here. Nanaimo's decision not to use Bobby Orr on the PK may be good for his knees, but it is bad for the penalty kill. Vasiliev - Horner is a stronger defensive pairing on the first unit than Conacher - McCrimmon and Cooney Weiland (though he is a bit better offensively) does not match Edgar Laprade's checking abilities when comparing the forwards. Conacher - McCrimmon is probably the slowest 1st unit PK defensive pairing in the draft and while that may not matter too much in transition as they won't attack the Seals' powerplay unless they lose their minds, even in the defensive zone Nanaimo's defensemen will be hard-pressed to keep up with the passing of Oakland's top unit. Both Conacher and McCrimmon were very strong positional players, but knowing where to be and getting to that spot, especially against a powerplay with the talent of this one, are two very different things.

Nanaimo's 2nd unit PK is probably a bit better defensively than Oakland's, but Phillips, Howe and Griffis are all great skaters and major shorthanded threats, while Skov and Nesterenko don't bring a whole lot going back the other way (and neither does Conacher, though Hap Day is a threat). Especially against a Nanaimo 2nd unit powerplay that features the extremely slow-footed Lionel Conacher on one point, Oakland's 2nd unit PK will be a threat to bring it back the other way every time they get control of the puck. The second units are about even, on the whole, but Oakland's first unit is the better of the two, even taking into account Nanaimo's advantage in goal.

Not much really needs to be said to justify that Oakland's first unit powerplay is better than Nanaimo's. Even with Bobby Orr quarterbacking the Clippers' man advantage, it's really not that close. Although I think Bobby Rousseau is a terrific third liner (and incidentally, Rousseau is the reason we've moved Tommy Phillips back up to the Oakland 3rd line), as an ATD 1st unit powerplay pointman he's on the extreme low end offensively. While I think Bobby Rousseau is better than Pit Martin in Montreal, he's a real weak link by ATD standards and Frank Finnigan will be applying consistent high pressure on Bobby Orr's point to force the puck to Rousseau's side. A healthy Bobby Orr is certainly better than Clancy all-around, but Clancy is a top-10 all-time offensive defenseman, himself, and Harry Cameron on Oakland's other point is much better than Rousseau. In addition to simply being more talented, Oakland's 1st unit powerplay has no exploitable holes while Nanaimo's has a pretty big one.

While Conacher - Day may have a small advantage over Vasiliev - Griffis offensively, Stevens - Nighbor - Litzenberger falls short of Howe - Federko - Dillon, mostly because Syd Howe is a lot better than Kevin Stevens.

- Harry Cameron: Nanaimo has no counter to Harry Cameron's talents on Oakland's 3rd pairing. The Seals already pretty well outclass the Clippers on the 4th line, but throwing Cameron into the mix makes the Oakland 4th line an even more dangerous secondary scoring unit.

 

[pitseleh]

Congrats to Oakland on making this far, you guys have put together a great team. I'm looking forward to a tough series.

I'm going to change my lineup a fair bit (sorry Sturm after that long write-up you've already done). I'll get into it more later today.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Dream match-up time. Gretzky vs. Orr. Can't beat it.

But this series really comes down to the same thing that Oakland's two previous series have come down to: Can Nanaimo shut down the Gretzky line. Shutting down Gretzky is hard enough - it's even harder when he's feeding Andy Bathgate. If you think Nanaimo's vaunted two-way line, collection of well-rounded centres and assemblence of rock-solid defencemen can do the job, take Nanaimo. If you don't, take Oakland.

If anyone's going to do it, it's Nanaimo. Nobody left in the draft is better up the middle than Nanaimo. Not only are Primeau, Nighbour and Weiland exceptional offensively, they're rock-solid defensively. Glen Skov is a really good defensive centre, too. Prentice and Rousseau on the wings for Weilland give Nanaimo one of the best defensive lines remaining.

Nanaimo's defensive is virtually weakness-free, at least in their own zone. They're smart, steady and extremely tough to play against. McCrimmon's a perfect partner for Orr. Day and Conacher would be perfect partners, too.

But they're facing The Great One, and a perfect linemate for the Great One in Andy Bathgate. Syd Howe rounds out the primo offensive line remaining. We'll see how this line responds, because they haven't been challenged yet. (And they weren't going to be challenged in that wild and wooley division). Oakland also has good second line scoring, and several defenders who have lots of offensive talent.

I give Nanaimo the edge in goal, and a definite edge behind the bench, but this series comes down to Nanaimo's ability (or lack thereof) to stop Gretzky.

PS: Word of advice, pit: I'd keep the line-up the same. Go with the horses who brought you this far. And you beat two damn good teams. Don't overthink it and do more harm than good. You change the line-up now, and six-to-eight months of chemistry goes out the window.

 

[Sturminator]

I'm curious to see what you'll change up for this series, pit. I don't mind a bit of wasted effort; we all have to make our adjustments in our own time. The Clippers are a great team and I would be absolutely shocked if this series doesn't go seven. Win or lose, it's going to be a dandy.

GBC, I think the coaching edge is not clear, at all. Hap Day was a terrific coach and I'm not going to criticize him, but Cecil Hart is a coach with a very impressive though short track record (he is the Chuck Gardiner of coaches) whose style is perfect for a team with Oakland's blend of personnel. Tommy Gorman improves the penalty kill and defensive schemes when Oakland is sitting on a lead, if nothing else, though it is ultimately Hart's team to coach. With Gorman in the fold, I think Oakland actually has a slight edge in the coaching matchup.

I agree with you that Nanaimo's defense is strong, but one thing they are not is fast. Lionel Conacher has serious footspeed issues (more on that later) and McCrimmon was a pretty good skater for his size, but is basically average overall. The Seals are a deep offensive team that skates and passes extremely well on every line and on defense, meaning that it will take quick defensemen to keep up with them from the first to the third pairing. Against a conventional offense, I think Nanaimo's defense is very solid, but Oakland's is not a conventional offense. We shall see.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

How Oakland Can Win

- Depth scorers step up. Any team, even one with Orr, will have a tough time containing the Gretkzy line. In addition to their top line, Oakland has great offensive depth in Cecil Dillon (a top goal-scorer for several), Jack Adams (underrated as a player—four top-five scoring finishes in the PCHA and NHL), Bernie Federko (good PO scorer on bad teams) and Paul Kariya. With considerable resources geared towards shutting down Gretzky, Nanaimo’s defense will get overwhelmed if Oakland’s depth scorers consistently play to their potential.

- Team speed. Oakland has great skaters throughout their roster. The blueline is especially fast; Griffis, Clancy, Vasiliev and Cameron were all among the best skaters of their era and will help their transitional offense considerably. Kariya, Gretzky and Dillon also have exceptional speed. Nanaimo has good skaters as well (the only really slow player is Stevens, though I’d like to hear what Sturm says about L. Conacher’s speed) but I don’t think they have the same level of top-end speed/acceleration relative to Oakland, especially on the blueline.

- Hart and Gorman find the right strategic balance. The two coaches need to find a system that will allow Gretkzy’s line to utilize its incredible speed and creativity, but at the same time defends itself from Nanaimo’s great transition offense. I would think that Gorman and Hart would manage the PK and PP, respectively. If Oakland can find a way to control the tempo of the game, speeding it up when Gretzky is on the ice and slowing it down otherwise, they will have good chance at winning.

How Nanaimo Can Win

- Goaltending. Clint Benedict was almost as dominant as Hasek or Durnan during his RS prime and was a strong PO performer as well. He was also one of the most innovative goalies in league history, too (first to wear a mask, and they overturned the rule the prevented goalies from going down on the ice due to Benedict “accidentally” falling to make a save). If any goalie can out-think Gretzky, it would be Benedict. If he can steal at least one game, Nanaimo has a good chance.

- Physical defensive blueline. Nanaimo has one of the best defensive bluelines in the draft. Orr, Hitchman, Conacher and Marotte were all tough blueliners who were routinely used to shut down their opponents’ best players. McCrimmon wasn’t physical, but he was one of the best positional defensemen of the eighties (not too far behind Langway, really). Outside of Bruce Stuart, none of Oakland’s top six forwards are especially physical and could get worn down over seven games.

- Second line plays to its full potential. There are some question marks with the second line but, at their best, they could be a threat at both ends of the ice. Nighbor, a Hart-winner, was routinely a top-ten scorer and, by all accounts, was one of the best (and cleanest) defensive forwards of his era. His prime actually sounds a lot like Fedorov’s 1993-94 peak. Litzenberger had an excellent three-year prime with a weak supporing cast (Hull was too young, Lindsay was too old). During his best three years he had more goals than every player except Howe, Moore and Beliveau. Stevens has some question marks (injuries and reliance on Lemieux); still, his physical play, size and goal-scoring ability could be an excellent complement to Nighbor’s clean playmaking.

 

[BM67]

On the health of Charlie Conacher, much his problems came from being a crease crasher at a time when the nets didn't move when you hit them. With the modern nets, he should be much healthier.

 

[Sturminator]

On the health of Charlie Conacher, much his problems came from being a crease crasher at a time when the nets didn't move when you hit them. With the modern nets, he should be much healthier.

He also apparently had a kidney removed in an era when such things weren't considered normal operations and played in a leather harness to protect the area. You can find the reference here. That's the only really chronic health problem I know Conacher had, though like Joe Primeau, he had a relatively short peak, overall - being a dominant player for only five years.

 

[Sturminator]

As promised, here is more on Lionel Conacher's skating, or lack thereof:

He didn't even strap on skates until he was 16 years old, and had to develop cunning defensive strategies to overcome his limited skating abilities.

The link is here.

Here is another one:

He was a very, very poor skater, but he had an awful lot of determination and he became the most awkward all-star I guess the league ever had.

The quote comes from Hall of Fame referee Red Storey (who saw Conacher play) in a video which can be found here.

And the last bit comes from his HHOF one-on-one:

What he lacked in skating skills was compensated for in shotblocking, positioning and sheer desire.

So here we have it: the guy was a really bad skater. Nalyd actually wanted to draft Conacher in the 4th round where we eventually took Vasiliev, but I said no because I'd already researched Lionel pretty thoroughly, having drafted him (to pair with Clancy, strangely enough) in another all-time draft. Speed (both for offense and defense) was very important to Nalyd and I, and so we couldn't take Conacher in spite of his other good qualities.

Slightly off topic, but it should also be noted that Lionel Conacher's playoff scoring record is not that of an offensive defenseman. His career playoff line is 2-2-4 in 35 games (the exact line Red Horner put up in 7 games during his best playoff year). His offensive skills are, in general, rather overrated in my opinion. Conacher could handle the puck, but I think many GMs overrate his hand skills, and he's certainly not going to do much in transition.

Again off-topic: Alexander Ragulin has been compared to the Russian Tim Horton, but I think a better comparison is the Russian Lionel Conacher without the mean streak. I like Conacher (and I'm particularly fond of his story - he was far from a perfect man, but he did what was necessary to take care of his family when he had to, and I think that shows a lot of character) and in some situations he is dominant, but any deficiency in skating against a team as fast as Oakland should be a red flag and Conacher is among the worst skaters in the draft. He was a great athlete, but skating is a skill that takes a long time to perfect and Conacher just got a really late start at it. I know he's been hanging around the same draft position for some time now, but I think the 4th round is a bit early for a player whose game is as limited as Conacher's.

Orr and Day are very good skaters, Marotte was pretty good, but Conacher is a slug and McCrimmon and Hitchman are both average. Oakland is an exceptionally speedy team with great passers throughout the lineup, especially on the blueline. Besides Norstrom and the goalies, there isn't a single player in Oakland's starting 20 that isn't a serious threat to start transition offense as soon as he gets control of the puck.

As good as they were down low in their own zone, players like McCrimmon, Hitchman and especially Conacher are likely to get exposed in all zones (not only in transition - acceleration and agility are important following the puck down low, as well) against a team with Oakland's speed and puck control. If Conacher lines up against Oakland's 2nd line, what is he going to do against a guy like Paul Kariya, whose combination of high-end speed, acceleration and lateral mobility puts him among the best skaters in history? What happens when Cecil Dillon or Tommy Phillips (also among the best skaters of his generation) are bearing down on Lionel Hitchman? Gretzky or Bathgate (who HO didn't mention, but he was an explosive skater, as well) on McCrimmon? Positioning is important, but knowing where to be and getting there are seperate questions. Besides Stevens, Nanaimo's forwards skate pretty well, but the defense is not particularly fast, and doesn't match up well with Oakland, especially with Bobby Orr attacking as much as I'm sure he will and taking himself out of position (when he's not scoring, of course) against one of the few teams with the transition offense to consistently punish him for it.

 

[pitseleh]

Sorry for holding things back. The forward lineup I've decided on is as follows:

Sweeney Schriner - Joe Primeau - Charlie Conacher
Dean Prentice - Frank Nighbor - Ed Litzenberger
Kevin Stevens - Cooney Weiland - Bobby Rousseau
Hec Kilrea - Glen Skov - Eric Nesterenko
Camille Henry

The reason for the change:

- Focus on Gretzky's Line - I feel the best opportunity that I have to limit Gretzky's line's effectiveness is to go strength on strength. Nighbor is the guy I want on Gretzky all game. He's one of the best defensive forwards in the draft, and if anyone can limit Gretzky's effectiveness, it'll be him. He's a cerebral player like Gretzky was, excellent defensively and strong enough offensively to make Gretzky work both ways.

I moved Prentice up to that line to add a second more defensive presence on that line to line up against Bathgate. Prentice and Bathgate were long time linemates and I think this understanding of Bathgate's game will allow him to do a better job of defending against him effectively.

- Size and Strength on the Third Line - The new third line that we have - Stevens-Weiland-Rousseau - will go up against the Federko line. I felt with Horner on the back end and Stuart up front that that this line would need more size to effectively compete. Stevens provides slightly more of an offensive spark and spreads the offense a bit more through our top three lines.

________________________________________

To address the Conacher issue - I always assumed (and I could be wrong) that Conacher being a poor skater was more an issue of being awkward rather than slow (like a Ken Reardon type). Even with that though, Day as his partner, Conacher can focus on physically handling Stuart and Federko leaving Day to fend off Kariya (LW/RD matchup).

As to Conacher's offense, a quote from his retro Conn Smythe:

Conacher was at his hard-hitting best and ex NHLer Johnny "Peanuts" O'Flaherty said "Conacher blocked more shots than Charlie Gardiner and was the definite difference in the finals".Conacher also led many rushes out of his own end and scored two goals on these rushes. He was mentioned as a star in six of the eight games his team played.

I believe that Conacher's playoff scoring isn't indicative of his overall scoring prowess. He played on teams with weak defenses overall and is likely the reason why he was twice a runner up for the Hart. For this reason, he was relied upon as the team's defensive rock come playoff time and it's likely he placed less emphasis on generating offense. His seven top-5 finishes amongst defensemen in scoring is probably a better indication of his offensive ability.

Sturm mentioned that Horner scored as many points in one series as Conacher did in his career. Through his first 34 games (compared to Conacher's 35 - the eras overlap substantially as well) he racked up 8 points playing on a much more offensively capable team - Conacher's teams were much more defensively orientated. Add to that the small sample size and I don't think it's indicative of their respective scoring abilities.

I won't argue that my defense is fast overall (they aren't) but while Oakland's quick lineup has the speed to take advantage of this on occassion, I also think it will hurt them because of my defense's ability to punish them physically. Conacher, Hitchman and Marotte are amongst the best hitters on defense to play the game and Orr was tough in his own right. I know Gretzky was tough to hit, but with a forward group with as many smaller players as Oakland has, I think that we can wear them down over a long series by punishing them physically whenever we can.

That's all I have time for at the moment. I will post more later.

 

[pitseleh]

To add one more thing quickly, Hap Day's Leafs were always building around plodding defensemen like Bob Goldham, Bucko McDonald, Jim Thomson and Gus Mortson. Along with centers like Apps and Kennedy, they weren't the quickest of teams. They were still able to neutralize players like the Bentleys (before Max joined them), Sid Abel, Syd Howe amongst numerous others who played during that era.

 

[pappyline]

As promised, here is more on Lionel Conacher's skating, or lack thereof:

for every quote about Conacher's bad skating, I see several about his effective play, The guy was a natural athlete. Deserves to be picked in early rounds. Phil Esposito(bot a fav of mine) was one of the worst skaters i ever saw but he was a natural athlete & gets picked in the 1st round of these drafts.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

For the record, Mortson was actually a very good skater.

 

[pitseleh]

For the record, Mortson was actually a very good skater.

My bad, I knew that too. For some reason I attributed a quote I thought of to Mortson instead of Goldham.

 

[Sturminator]

for every quote about Conacher's bad skating, I see several about his effective play, The guy was a natural athlete. Deserves to be picked in early rounds. Phil Esposito(bot a fav of mine) was one of the worst skaters i ever saw but he was a natural athlete & gets picked in the 1st round of these drafts.

Of course Lionel Conacher was an effective player, and as I said, I believe he is dominant in certain situations. He's a perfect guy to clear the front of the net of big players on the penalty kill, he's a good shot-blocker, a big hitter, tough fighter and very solid positional defender who can handle the puck. If Conacher is drafted a bit high, it is only because until now there were probably a lot of GMs who didn't realize the full extent of his skating problems. If you draft a guy who you think is a decent but ungraceful skater and it turns out he's a slug, of course you've taken him a bit high. Looking back at ATD#8, I don't think Conacher should be taken ahead of Laperriere, Howe, Quackenbush, Pronovost or Buck Boucher, at a minimum, nevermind forwards like Bucyk, Boucher and Blake.

The real problem here is not that Conacher is an ineffective player, but that he's exactly the wrong kind of defenseman to matchup against the Seals. As was the case with Ching Johnson in the last round, slow-footed physical defensemen are not the guys you want trying to shut down an offense like Oakland's. Conacher would be great on the PK, for example, against a team that uses the standard big-forward-in-front-of-the-net powerplay, but Oakland doesn't play that game. Gretzky will quarterback the PP from down low a lot of the time and the unit will rely on quick passing and puck movement to create open looks. Conacher trying to chase the great one around behind the net is a disasterous matchup for Nanaimo, not because Conacher is a bad player (he absolutely is not), but because the matchup exploits his weaknesses perfectly.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I guess I should weigh in here.

This is an interesting match-up, I keep having to face the GMs I most respect. And frankly, with Benedict, Weiland, Kilrea, Stevens and Konovalenko, I take the Clippers as a compliment. From the moment the draft was over last time, I knew the Clippers had the best team. This time though, I don't believe I'll win because of pride or because of a few unstoppable players. In ATD 8 I believe that the Oakland Seals will win because they have a thorough team concept that demands too much of opponents to defeat in a best of 7 with high end talents that in the opponents best case scenario cannot be stopped, only slowed. I think I can win because I believe my team is the best. Coming from a biased source, arrogance can easily be attributed to my statement, but I believe.

What's interesting here though is this, normally, the Oakland Seals will own the open ice in every match. But, for 25-30 minutes a game, the Nanaimo Clippers will have the best open ice player. This certainly creates difficulties. But I'll dedicate a full post tomorrow to Mr. Orr. He deserves it.

But beyond Orr, I do like our chances.

Goaltending: You'll not find a bigger Benedict booster than me. So I'd be as sincere as a politician speaking at an ethics seminar if I badmouthed him. I'm not going to. Benedict is the superior goalie. Holocek is good enough to keep it close, Benedict is not going to go all Dryden vs Cheevers on us. But he is going to make life hell, especially since 1983 and 1993 proved there's only one thing that can overcome the Great One, and that's goaltending. That said, I do believe that we don't play to his strengths. Benedict is fearless, he's not going to be intimidated by crease crashers or booming shots. That's not Oakland's style, Oakland's style is much more Soviet in that we keep things moving, both the players and the puck until precision and accuracy can lead the way. And, in time, with due patience, that can overcome any goalie. Benedict will give us less opportunities, but he won't be perfect and we won't play a style that will get him in the zone.

Defense: Obviously Nanaimo has the best in the series, by a fair margin, but then, anything less than Potvin is a fair margin when it comes to Orr. That said, when his size isn't a hindrance, Clancy is as good as any d-man taken in the 2nd round. But after that, the advantage slips to Oakland. Vasiliev vs Conacher, I give this to Vasliev, mainly for the reason that we've beaten like bubonic horse, speed. But not because Conacher is slow, but because Vasliev is a great skater, both in a line and 360, and how many elite shutdown d-men are great skaters? Most are in the Conacher/Johnson style where they use strength, guts and smarts to contain their opponent. And in this series, the defining players are the best puck carrier ever and the best puck mover ever, I want my best defensive player to be able to move. And what's more, no one knows Conacher's strengths and weaknesses like Gorman does. Horner vs Day, well, I can see the argument that this is a wash, both are what was needed. Oakland needs a dedicated warrior d-man, while Nanaimo needs a well rounded d-man. But again, I like Horner because, for a beast he moves better than most and he moves the puck even better. But like I said, both teams got what they needed. Then we get McCrimmon vs Cameron. Well, offensively, no contest here, McCrimmon wins. Cameron is probably the best #2 offensive d-man on any team in this tournament, he has the skills to be the go to guy. McCrimmon is better defensively though, but the difference isn't nearly as extreme as in the offensive department, Cameron is tough and responsible, I wouldn't use him as a shutdown guy, but even then McCrimmon is more of a safety net guy than a shutdown guy. Then, Hitchman vs Griffis, Hitchman is underrated, but, come on, Griffis is probably the best #5 in the draft and only Jack Crawford can argue the point. Griffis combination of size, mobility and poise make him a very well rounded contributor, he may even be comparable to Hap Day. Marotte vs Norstrom, neither player ill be playing a heavy role, Marotte is more offensive and more physical (Don't want to say tougher as Norstrom is tough but more controlled.) while Norstrom is better defensively. If it matters, Norstrom played in more all-star games.

Offense: Is there a bigger disparity in match-up than Gretzky vs Primeau as #1 center? If Oakland is worried about the disparity between Orr and Clancy, it is made up and then some with Gretzky and Primeau. Primeau was very good, but for a very short period of time where he had studs all around him. Conacher is better than Bathgate, but durability is a concern and the difference is mild. Schriner has more offense than any LW than we have, but, does he have anything else to his game? Howe is about as complete a player as one can get outside of the top 40. Our top line has much high upside and greater versatility. Not going to sell Nighbor short, I'd be hard pressed to think of a center I'd less like to face. Hart and Gorman will do everything they can to keep him away from Gretzky. And even when we have to bite the bullet. Nighbor can't shutdown Gretzky, he can only show him, and by weakening the defensive capabilities of the other lines, I believe the clutch play of Federko and Dillon and the hardwork and leadership of Holik, Stuart, Adams and Phillips will step up and win a game or two. And last of all, I'd just like to say, no team can offer what Holik-Adams-Dillon offers from the 4th line, that could be a 3rd line, heck, it could be a 2nd line on a good day.

Coaching: I fear Day, he knows how to win and he knows how to balance working with players as individuals and getting them to work as a team. Anyone that can come back 3-0 in the cup finals is one hell of a coach. If he coached longer, he might be Arbour/Blake/Bowman good. Day will cause problems for us. But, by the same token, the yin-yang coaching of Hart and Gorman will cause problems for Day. Day is a master of fundamentals, Hart and Gorman are both innovators. And in many ways, that may be the ultimate question, what's more effective, doing what's known as well as possible, or doing what no one ever expected. And then you have to ask, is Nanaimo capable of excelling at their style? Because I can say for a fact that Oakland excels at their style.

 

[Sturminator]

I moved Prentice up to that line to add a second more defensive presence on that line to line up against Bathgate. Prentice and Bathgate were long time linemates and I think this understanding of Bathgate's game will allow him to do a better job of defending against him effectively.

I've never really understood the argument that familiarity between teammates somehow benefits the defensive player. We saw this last round with MacTavish vs. Gretzky and I pointed out that it works both ways and that it seems likely that the player with the superior in-game intelligence would actually benefit more from familiarity. I don't think I have to justify why I think Bathgate has better hockey sense that Prentice.

I hold Dean Prentice in high regard, and to be honest I think familiarity is essentially a wash. Bathgate and Prentice were longtime linemates and probably didn't actually go against each other much in practice. Given that they played mostly in the six team era, I'd say that defensive left wingers who played against Andy Bathgate in this era are probably more familiar with his game than is Dean Prentice. At any rate, I think this argument either way is basically a waste of time.

I believe that Conacher's playoff scoring isn't indicative of his overall scoring prowess. He played on teams with weak defenses overall and is likely the reason why he was twice a runner up for the Hart. For this reason, he was relied upon as the team's defensive rock come playoff time and it's likely he placed less emphasis on generating offense. His seven top-5 finishes amongst defensemen in scoring is probably a better indication of his offensive ability.

Conacher clearly had hand skills, and his big dips in playoff scoring are I'm sure partly a result of the systems in which he played and his own decision to sacrifice offense for defense. Nevertheless, he must have been his teams' first unit powerplay quarterback for most of those games, and he really didn't produce much in that role.

Sturm mentioned that Horner scored as many points in one series as Conacher did in his career. Through his first 34 games (compared to Conacher's 35 - the eras overlap substantially as well) he racked up 8 points playing on a much more offensively capable team - Conacher's teams were much more defensively orientated. Add to that the small sample size and I don't think it's indicative of their respective scoring abilities.

If we're only looking at Horner's first 34 games, Red also drew only 46 PIMs in that span, or a rate of 1.35 PIMs/game, putting him well below many of his contemporaries. Not quite the Red Horner we've all come to know and love. If we want to look at limited sample sizes, the argument does work both ways. Actually, I think Horner's last playoff season, in which he racked up 55 PIMs in 9 games - more than twice that of any previous postseason campaign - can be taken as an outlier. These were Red Horner's final games as a pro hockey player, and obviously he wasn't the same player that he was at his peak.

If we eliminate the 9 game 55 PIM line of Horner's last playoff year from the calculation, he comes out to a reasonable 1.85 PIMs/game, with a good chunk of those being matching fighting majors. That puts Horner on-line with many of his contemporaries in terms of postseason PIMs - at about the same level as Sylvio Mantha. The image of Red Horner as a reckless penalty machine is simply false. He was Toronto's policeman during the regular season, but picked his spots much better in the playoffs, with the exception of his final year, in which he appears to have been practically a boxer on skates.

I won't argue that my defense is fast overall (they aren't) but while Oakland's quick lineup has the speed to take advantage of this on occassion, I also think it will hurt them because of my defense's ability to punish them physically. Conacher, Hitchman and Marotte are amongst the best hitters on defense to play the game and Orr was tough in his own right. I know Gretzky was tough to hit, but with a forward group with as many smaller players as Oakland has, I think that we can wear them down over a long series by punishing them physically whenever we can.

- to begin with, clearly Andy Bathgate is not going to be physically intimidated by anyone.

- what is meant by "wear them down"? If we're talking about tired legs, clearly Oakland is the fresher team, having played seven fewer games in the postseason. I can only assume that we're talking about injuries then. It's a fair enough question considering that I've brought up the perilous health of Nanaimo's best offensive players. But who on Oakland is going to get worn down?

- Gretzky: go here to catch a great quote from Denis Potvin on how hard it was to lay the wood on Gretzky. The exact quote is "I wanted to hit him so badly sometimes, but I just really couldn't get a piece of him. He was like a master chess player. He knew where to go where he wasn't really going to run into a lot of traffic and yet be most effective." Potvin's bit comes just past the five minute mark. I don't take seriously the idea that Conacher, Hitchman and Marotte will be able to hurt Gretzky over seven games when the best players in the league couldn't hit him cleanly over the course of his whole career.

- as for the rest of the team: find a player with injury problems. There aren't any, unless you think Paul Kariya being the recipient of one of the most infamous cheap shots in hockey history constitutes an injury problem. Of course, Kariya came back from that cheap shot to return to the top of the league and came back again to score a goal (ten minutes later this time) when Scott Stevens caught him in the head in the Stanley Cup Finals four years later. As far as size is concerned, winning the puck is one thing, injuries are quite another. Are smallish players who were healthy for their whole careers supposed to get hurt over a seven game series against the likes of Conacher, Hitchman and Marotte now? If those three are able to hurt otherwise completely healthy Oakland players, I shudder to think of what Konstantinov, Boivin and Wilson did to Bobby Orr in the first round.

At any rate, I suspected Nalyd would rotate stronger defensive players onto Nighbor's wings, so that comes as no surprise and necessitates no big tactical changes on our part. The ultra fast pairing of Vasiliev-Clancy will still skate in support of the Gretzky line, and Cecil Hart will use his last line chance in games 1, 2, 5 and 7 to keep his first unit away from Frank Nighbor's line at every opportunity. Other than that, I think Oakland matches up well with Nanaimo strength-on-strength, with the lines simply playing straight across.

 

[BM67]

Note that Nanaimo has the home ice advantage.

 

[Sturminator]

I guess I misunderstood the playoff format. I thought that seeding determined home ice advantage unless equal seeds were squaring off. To be honest, a #2 seed having home ice over a #1 seed seems rather ridiculous, though it's clearly a bit late to argue the point.

 

[vancityluongo]

I guess I misunderstood the playoff format. I thought that seeding determined home ice advantage unless equal seeds were squaring off. To be honest, a #2 seed having home ice over a #1 seed seems rather ridiculous, though it's clearly a bit late to argue the point.

It's the NHL format buddy.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=11666520&postcount=359

I like it that way personally.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Been feeling off lately, possibly sick, possibly exhausted, I dunno. So i Haven't had a chance to say much, but, before I head off. I'd just like to remind people about Oakland's secret weapon. Cameron and Dillon streaking down the right side. Those two are huge talents that can be snuck out when Nanaimo least expects it.

 

[Sturminator]

It's the NHL format buddy.

The NHL format has conference seedings and doesn't take regular season record into account until the finals. Given that we seed by division, however, I guess this is our amalgamation of the NHL system.

 

[pitseleh]

Sorry I haven't had much time to contribute guys, we could have had a good discussion but things got a little hectic with my schedule. It may be too little too late, but here's a couple of thoughts:

I've never really understood the argument that familiarity between teammates somehow benefits the defensive player. We saw this last round with MacTavish vs. Gretzky and I pointed out that it works both ways and that it seems likely that the player with the superior in-game intelligence would actually benefit more from familiarity. I don't think I have to justify why I think Bathgate has better hockey sense that Prentice.

I hold Dean Prentice in high regard, and to be honest I think familiarity is essentially a wash. Bathgate and Prentice were longtime linemates and probably didn't actually go against each other much in practice. Given that they played mostly in the six team era, I'd say that defensive left wingers who played against Andy Bathgate in this era are probably more familiar with his game than is Dean Prentice. At any rate, I think this argument either way is basically a waste of time.

I think it's a similar argument that players who played against a certain player have a leg up (i.e. a Leswick playing against the Rocket). Though he wouldn't have the same level of understanding, I tend to believe that a familiarity of a player's game benefits the defensive player. Gretzky is a different case because I don't think anyone could figure out what he was going to do.

Conacher clearly had hand skills, and his big dips in playoff scoring are I'm sure partly a result of the systems in which he played and his own decision to sacrifice offense for defense. Nevertheless, he must have been his teams' first unit powerplay quarterback for most of those games, and he really didn't produce much in that role.

Cy Wentworth was the primary offensive option for the Maroons team that he was a part of for 15 of his playoff games. Conacher's only other lengthy playoff run was his Cup winning retro-Conn Smythe year. His other playoffs were with some very low scoring teams (6 goals in 4 games as a team one year, 1 goal in 2 games another). I see it as a Scott Stevens type situation - he had the capabilities to play more offensively but was needed as the defensive rock on his teams.

- to begin with, clearly Andy Bathgate is not going to be physically intimidated by anyone.

- what is meant by "wear them down"? If we're talking about tired legs, clearly Oakland is the fresher team, having played seven fewer games in the postseason. I can only assume that we're talking about injuries then. It's a fair enough question considering that I've brought up the perilous health of Nanaimo's best offensive players. But who on Oakland is going to get worn down?

- Gretzky: go here to catch a great quote from Denis Potvin on how hard it was to lay the wood on Gretzky. The exact quote is "I wanted to hit him so badly sometimes, but I just really couldn't get a piece of him. He was like a master chess player. He knew where to go where he wasn't really going to run into a lot of traffic and yet be most effective." Potvin's bit comes just past the five minute mark. I don't take seriously the idea that Conacher, Hitchman and Marotte will be able to hurt Gretzky over seven games when the best players in the league couldn't hit him cleanly over the course of his whole career.

- as for the rest of the team: find a player with injury problems. There aren't any, unless you think Paul Kariya being the recipient of one of the most infamous cheap shots in hockey history constitutes an injury problem. Of course, Kariya came back from that cheap shot to return to the top of the league and came back again to score a goal (ten minutes later this time) when Scott Stevens caught him in the head in the Stanley Cup Finals four years later. As far as size is concerned, winning the puck is one thing, injuries are quite another. Are smallish players who were healthy for their whole careers supposed to get hurt over a seven game series against the likes of Conacher, Hitchman and Marotte now? If those three are able to hurt otherwise completely healthy Oakland players, I shudder to think of what Konstantinov, Boivin and Wilson did to Bobby Orr in the first round.

I agree, Bathgate won't be intimidated and neither will Stuart. But other than those two, Adams and Dillon are average to slightly above average adjusting for era along with Federko while the rest of your forwards would be considered small. With the physical play that is expected of our forwards and defense, over the long series I could see them getting worn out.

This doesn't necessarily mean injured, but being pounded physically over a seven game series is both fatiguing for the players and has an effect on how they play the game. We see it time and again with physical teams (case in point - Anaheim last season).

As for Nalyd's point about Cameron and Dillon - I feel comfortable enough with our team that we can handle those guys if they come up against our second through fourth lines defensively. If they are playing against our top line, I think that we are good enough offensively to to take advantage of that matchup. While Holik was strong both ways and Dillon was solid as well, I've never seen Adams as a shutdown center (more of a physical guy who could score) and Norstrom-Cameron is a pairing I feel that Schriner-Primeau-Conacher could take advantage of.

With home ice advantage (I had no idea) getting our matchups will be a key to sucess. Getting Nighbor's line out against Gretzky and Weiland's out against Federko will give us enough of an advantage to take the series.

Best of luck to both of you though.