ATD#8 Jim Robson Final: #1 Montreal Canadiens vs. #2 Halifax RCAF
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Montreal Canadiens
PP1: Simmer - Lalonde - Cournoyer - Potvin - P. Martin
PP2: Hadfield - Ratelle - H. Smith - Pronovost - Ramage
PK1: Marcotte - Jarvis - Potvin - Howell
PK2: Ratelle - T.Murray - Hajt - Barilko
vs.
Halifax RCAF
PP1: D. Bentley - O'Connor - Neely - M. Bentley - Bourque
PP2: D. Hull - Primeau - Taylor - Stanowski - Stanley
PK1: Armstrong - D.Bentley - Bourque - Mortson
PK2: Taylor - Tikkanen - Stanley - Stanowski
PP1: Simmer - Lalonde - Cournoyer - Potvin - P. Martin
PP2: Hadfield - Ratelle - H. Smith - Pronovost - Ramage
PK1: Marcotte - Jarvis - Potvin - Howell
PK2: Ratelle - T.Murray - Hajt - Barilko
vs.
Halifax RCAF
PP1: D. Bentley - O'Connor - Neely - M. Bentley - Bourque
PP2: D. Hull - Primeau - Taylor - Stanowski - Stanley
PK1: Armstrong - D.Bentley - Bourque - Mortson
PK2: Taylor - Tikkanen - Stanley - Stanowski
Halifax full PK and last minute squads:
PK1: Armstrong-D.Bentley
PK2: Taylor-Tikkanen
PK3: Schmautz-Primeau
PK4: Maltby-Risebrough
Defence:
PK1: Bourque-Mortson
PK2: Stanley-Stanowski
PK3: Green-Macoun
Last minute when trailing:
D. Bentley-O'Connor-Neely-M. Bentley-Bourque-Stanowski
Last minutes when leading:
D. Bentley-Primeau-Tikkanen-Bourque-Stanley
PK1: Armstrong-D.Bentley
PK2: Taylor-Tikkanen
PK3: Schmautz-Primeau
PK4: Maltby-Risebrough
Defence:
PK1: Bourque-Mortson
PK2: Stanley-Stanowski
PK3: Green-Macoun
Last minute when trailing:
D. Bentley-O'Connor-Neely-M. Bentley-Bourque-Stanowski
Last minutes when leading:
D. Bentley-Primeau-Tikkanen-Bourque-Stanley
Best of luck to HO's Montreal Canadiens in this series. I don't know about raleh, but I've got revenge on my mind. HO's Canadiens knocked my team out in the ATD #6 conference final, and I've wanted another crack at him ever since.
I'll be posting full thoughts on this series ASAP, to give everyone lots of food for thought. But on the surface, it appears to be two teams very evenly matched in pretty much every department.
I'll be posting full thoughts on this series ASAP, to give everyone lots of food for thought. But on the surface, it appears to be two teams very evenly matched in pretty much every department.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,174
- 14,547
Congrats to GBC and Raleh for advancing this far. Should be a great matchup with lots of discussion.
Here are a couple of quick thoughts on the series. Unfortunately I will have to wait until tomorrow night until I go into depth about my strengths/weaknesses (and/or respond to any of GBC's/Raleh's points) as I have to be at a client early tomorrow morning.
I'm amazed by how similar our teams are. The similarities include: great playoff goalies who turn it up a notch in the spring; calm, intelligent coaches with proven PO track records; outstanding third lines with lots of toughness and Selke-calibre defensive players; and durable, complete #1 defensemen that could do everything.
With the exception of one area (which I'll write about tomorrow), I think our two teams are evenly matched. This will be a close one.
Here are a couple of quick thoughts on the series. Unfortunately I will have to wait until tomorrow night until I go into depth about my strengths/weaknesses (and/or respond to any of GBC's/Raleh's points) as I have to be at a client early tomorrow morning.
I'm amazed by how similar our teams are. The similarities include: great playoff goalies who turn it up a notch in the spring; calm, intelligent coaches with proven PO track records; outstanding third lines with lots of toughness and Selke-calibre defensive players; and durable, complete #1 defensemen that could do everything.
With the exception of one area (which I'll write about tomorrow), I think our two teams are evenly matched. This will be a close one.
raleh
Registered User
GBC, you got the revenge thing right!
Part of the problem with HO being in the top four in every draft he's taken part in is that he leaves a lot of teams bloodied and beaten along the way! After eliminating one of the co-GMs that beat Arrbez and I in the last minor league I look forward to trying to knock the other one out!
I'll write more tomorrow, but good luck HO. This should be an awesome series, and I'll always have a soft spot for you for trading down to give me the Rocket last draft!
Part of the problem with HO being in the top four in every draft he's taken part in is that he leaves a lot of teams bloodied and beaten along the way! After eliminating one of the co-GMs that beat Arrbez and I in the last minor league I look forward to trying to knock the other one out!
I'll write more tomorrow, but good luck HO. This should be an awesome series, and I'll always have a soft spot for you for trading down to give me the Rocket last draft!
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Right off the bat, I'll say that I think both powerplays will struggle a bit in this series. First off, we've got two excellent playoff goalies facing off and very good penalty killing on both sides of the ice, with the advantage on the 1st unit going to Montreal. Halifax has the better first unit powerplay with only O'Connor looking like the weak link (not that Buddy O'Connor was a weak player, but for a 1st unit ATD powerplay, yeah, he's well below average) while both Simmer and Martin on Montreal's man-advantage 1st unit look out of place to me. Part of the criticism of Simmer should be predictable coming from me: he's a short-peak player and a major injury risk. The second part is that Charlie Simmer only played past the first round of the playoffs once in his career. It's a criticism that is leveled at many of the players on those Kings teams, but Simmer is actually the most extreme case (moreso than Dionne).
Both teams also have forwards playing the point on the 1st unit, which raises issues for different reasons. I remember a bit of Pit Martin, and in addition to being a tough 2-way player, he was a good passer and playmaker in his prime who I believe (pappy, can you help me out here?) did quarterback a real-life powerplay at least for a few seasons. I don't think Martin is as much a defensive liability as many forwards playing the point, but offensively he simply falls short in this setting in comparison to the level of talent around the league. He didn't have a big shot and can't be considered a high-level playmaker in an all-time league. Offensively, he may be the worst 1st unit pointman remaining in these playoffs.
Having weakness on one point of the power play can hurt you because it allows the PK forward on the strong side to come out high while the other three collapse into a triangle and dare the weaker point man to beat them. Al MacInnis got this treatment (as in: he was the target of heavy high pressure by PKing forwards) like crazy for a couple of years in St. Louis after Duschesne left and before Pronger began peaking; it was pretty frustrating to watch. I think this will probably happen to Montreal a lot against the powerplay units as aligned. I would have recommended pairing Potvin and Pronovost on the 1st unit, but they're both left shooters, so that doesn't work out perfectly, either, and it weakens the second unit, which looks good, at present. I'm not sure what the right solution is here. As much as I love Harry Howell, the price you pay for drafting him is not really being able to use one of your top defensemen on the power play.
In Halifax's case, the problem with their 1st unit point forward is not offense, but the fact that Max Bentley is going to be vulnerable to shorties against, especially considering the strength of the Habs' 1st unit PK. Having Ray Bourque covering for him is nice, but against fast penalty killers with the talent of the Montreal 1st unit, Max Bentley on the point has to be considered something of a liability.
At any rate, I thought I'd point out what I see as a rather plodding special teams matchup in this series because I think special teams are very important. Both teams may be able to get away with a bit more of the rough stuff at even strength if the powerplays aren't really running hot. Which team that favors is up to the other GMs to decide.
Both teams also have forwards playing the point on the 1st unit, which raises issues for different reasons. I remember a bit of Pit Martin, and in addition to being a tough 2-way player, he was a good passer and playmaker in his prime who I believe (pappy, can you help me out here?) did quarterback a real-life powerplay at least for a few seasons. I don't think Martin is as much a defensive liability as many forwards playing the point, but offensively he simply falls short in this setting in comparison to the level of talent around the league. He didn't have a big shot and can't be considered a high-level playmaker in an all-time league. Offensively, he may be the worst 1st unit pointman remaining in these playoffs.
Having weakness on one point of the power play can hurt you because it allows the PK forward on the strong side to come out high while the other three collapse into a triangle and dare the weaker point man to beat them. Al MacInnis got this treatment (as in: he was the target of heavy high pressure by PKing forwards) like crazy for a couple of years in St. Louis after Duschesne left and before Pronger began peaking; it was pretty frustrating to watch. I think this will probably happen to Montreal a lot against the powerplay units as aligned. I would have recommended pairing Potvin and Pronovost on the 1st unit, but they're both left shooters, so that doesn't work out perfectly, either, and it weakens the second unit, which looks good, at present. I'm not sure what the right solution is here. As much as I love Harry Howell, the price you pay for drafting him is not really being able to use one of your top defensemen on the power play.
In Halifax's case, the problem with their 1st unit point forward is not offense, but the fact that Max Bentley is going to be vulnerable to shorties against, especially considering the strength of the Habs' 1st unit PK. Having Ray Bourque covering for him is nice, but against fast penalty killers with the talent of the Montreal 1st unit, Max Bentley on the point has to be considered something of a liability.
At any rate, I thought I'd point out what I see as a rather plodding special teams matchup in this series because I think special teams are very important. Both teams may be able to get away with a bit more of the rough stuff at even strength if the powerplays aren't really running hot. Which team that favors is up to the other GMs to decide.
Last edited:
pappyline
Registered User
Don't ever recall Pit Martin playing the point on the PP. Not that he didn't or not that he wouldn't be good at it, I just don't recall it. In fact I don't remember who played the point on the Hawks during martin's tenure.
As far as Max B. manning the point, I don't see a problem at all. He was famous for playing the right point on those great Leaf teams of the late 40's. With his puckhandling ability it would be difficult to strip the puck from him. Also, his speed allows him to cover quickly.
I have seen a few critizcisms of forwards on the point (including my own team). May not be the norm today but was sure the norm in the 50's 60's & 70's. Curious as to why it is considered such a risk to have a skilled forward on the point. Seems it can be just as risky to have 2 D as shown by the MacInnes story.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I think you're much better off having a skilled forward on the point than an unskilled defenseman, as was the problem in St. Louis. You're absolutely right that Max Bentley is not going to cough up the puck (he's one of the best stickhandlers of all-time), but he's also not the guy you want handling a one-on-one or (god help him) two-on-one going the other way against some of the top penalty-killers in this league. Bentley, like most forwards, will be pretty effective skating forwards chasing the play from behind (ie. backchecking) - but defending from the point and backchecking are not exactly the same thing and most forwards struggle when facing attackers because they have little to no practice skating backwards, turning, reading the lanes, blocking shots, etc. A forward facing a one-on-one is generally better off turning ahead of the opposing forward and trying to skate alongside him, though a smart attacker will cut behind the turning forward as soon as he sees the manuever and generally blow by him completely.
The problem is not Bentley losing the puck, but him being the last man back if there is a turnover and quick transition. Halifax should be able to cover that problem by telling Ray Bourque to pinch less, but that tactic has it's own obvious drawbacks. Against Montreal's 1st unit PK, Jarvis and Howell can't be expected to provide much of a counterattack, but Don Marcotte was actually a pretty good offensive player (though he couldn't be expected to outskate Max Bentley) and shorthanded threat and well, obviously Denis Potvin knows what to do with the puck. If I was HO, I might consider moving Jean Ratelle up to the first unit. Ratelle wasn't a particularly glorious defensive player (certainly not ATD 1st unit good), but his presence there would certainly put the fear of god in those Halifax pointmen.
pappyline
Registered User
Not sure this is true. I think most forwards today are very good at skating backwards. At least this is what I have observed coaching youth hockey. A forward who plays the point regularly surely would be adept at it.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
It's relative. Are they better at it than a forward not in that situation often? Yes. Are they as good as defensemen who are always in that situation? No. Almost every high level coach will agree that forwards on the point should be pressured for turnovers as they have a higher rate than d-men.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I dunno. In Bentley's case, maybe you're right, though I have seen a lot of point forwards play "Ole!" defense as the last man back, Paul Kariya among them. As far as forwards skating backwards goes, it's a relative statement. Of course a pro hockey player is going to be able to skate well backwards, but are we talking about skating well by normal standards or by 1st unit ATD standards?
I played hockey as a kid, but I'm not sure how relevant youth experiences are in this context. All kids basically practice all skills until a certain age, and even then you see kids switching positions with some frequency as late as junior A, but you almost never see NHL players switch from forward to defense. The skillsets get more and more specialized the further you go along. In my observation (as I have not coached at the NHL level, I can only observe), there are very few NHL forwards who possess the footwork, anticipation and turning skills to defend effectively when skating backwards.
We're going to keep the same line-up. Go with the guys who got us this far.
Sorry about the lack of feedback. Christmas party season. Long nights. Need naps.
As stated before, these are two extremely close teams. In the key areas, there isn't much to choose between these teams.
Coaching? Two of the top six coaches in the draft. We really wanted Arbour; HO took him before we could. We're thrilled to have Ivan. Great strategistic. Level headed. Coached teams that were able to score, while not fudging their defensive abilities.
Goaltending? I think Broda and Bower are the two best goalies in the draft. raleh and I targeted three goalies with our second round pick: Bower, Broda and Parent. After HO nabbed Broda, we targeted Bower. Neither team has an edge between the pipes; both goalies had good regular season portfolios, and both were outstanding in the playoffs.
Both teams have six defencemen who are really good in their own end. HO will say that "Harry Howell was named the best defensive defenceman of his era by Total Hockey." I think that's a little bit much - Howell was exceptional defensively, he won a Norris and stamped his ticket to the HHOF with his defensive ability - but I would rate Doug Harvey and Tim Horton ahead of him. And Max Bentley did serious damage in the playoffs against two defencemen - Butch Bouchard and Black Jack Stewart - that I would rate ahead of Howell.
I look at Montreal's forwards and I see a lot of speed on the first line, and grit on the second. Cournoyer and Lalonde are two of the best skaters in the draft, and Simmer's a nice bookend for that line. Hadfield and Smith are two very gritty forwards. Hadfield's a guy who should never be on a second line in this draft, unless he's teamed with former goal-a-game linemate Jean Ratelle.
Temptation is there to move Mortson or Stanowski on to Bourque's pairing, due to their better skating ability compared to Allan Stanley, so that we can match-up Bourque's pairing with the Lalonde line, and not have to worry about match-ups with our forward lines. But Stanley's greatest attributes are his smarts, positioning and anticipation, and those attributes can definitely compensate the lack of an extra gear.
Both teams have third lines that can shutdown the opposition, but can also chip in with some offence. I like our fourth line more - a little bit more reason and rhyme, with three guys who can skate, play tough and backcheck. Both the Primeau line and the Risebrough line can play against the Lalonde line.
No less authority than HO has said that we have the best first line in the draft. The Bentleys and Neely. Max Bentley and Neely are two of the best clutch scorers in the draft. Doug Bentley's playoff record would be best described as incomplete. (Much like Charlie Simmer's).
Also keep in mind that Max Bently and Turk Broda know each other very well. Bentley knows Broda's weak points. He knows how to beat Broda. And you can be sure he's communicated that to his teammates.
One other factor not mentioned: motivation. We want to beat this Montreal team. My team lost to Montreal in ATD #6 in the conference final. Esa Tikkanen was on our team. He remembers that. And we have two key personel from HO's championship team: Bower and Ivan. They want to prove what they can do away from HO. (Incidentally, Bower has been to the conference championship in the first two drafts).
It'll be a rough-and-tumble seven game series. One-goal games a-plenty. But motivation is a big factor, as is the Bentley-Broda factor. Halifax in 7.
Sorry about the lack of feedback. Christmas party season. Long nights. Need naps.
As stated before, these are two extremely close teams. In the key areas, there isn't much to choose between these teams.
Coaching? Two of the top six coaches in the draft. We really wanted Arbour; HO took him before we could. We're thrilled to have Ivan. Great strategistic. Level headed. Coached teams that were able to score, while not fudging their defensive abilities.
Goaltending? I think Broda and Bower are the two best goalies in the draft. raleh and I targeted three goalies with our second round pick: Bower, Broda and Parent. After HO nabbed Broda, we targeted Bower. Neither team has an edge between the pipes; both goalies had good regular season portfolios, and both were outstanding in the playoffs.
Both teams have six defencemen who are really good in their own end. HO will say that "Harry Howell was named the best defensive defenceman of his era by Total Hockey." I think that's a little bit much - Howell was exceptional defensively, he won a Norris and stamped his ticket to the HHOF with his defensive ability - but I would rate Doug Harvey and Tim Horton ahead of him. And Max Bentley did serious damage in the playoffs against two defencemen - Butch Bouchard and Black Jack Stewart - that I would rate ahead of Howell.
I look at Montreal's forwards and I see a lot of speed on the first line, and grit on the second. Cournoyer and Lalonde are two of the best skaters in the draft, and Simmer's a nice bookend for that line. Hadfield and Smith are two very gritty forwards. Hadfield's a guy who should never be on a second line in this draft, unless he's teamed with former goal-a-game linemate Jean Ratelle.
Temptation is there to move Mortson or Stanowski on to Bourque's pairing, due to their better skating ability compared to Allan Stanley, so that we can match-up Bourque's pairing with the Lalonde line, and not have to worry about match-ups with our forward lines. But Stanley's greatest attributes are his smarts, positioning and anticipation, and those attributes can definitely compensate the lack of an extra gear.
Both teams have third lines that can shutdown the opposition, but can also chip in with some offence. I like our fourth line more - a little bit more reason and rhyme, with three guys who can skate, play tough and backcheck. Both the Primeau line and the Risebrough line can play against the Lalonde line.
No less authority than HO has said that we have the best first line in the draft. The Bentleys and Neely. Max Bentley and Neely are two of the best clutch scorers in the draft. Doug Bentley's playoff record would be best described as incomplete. (Much like Charlie Simmer's).
Also keep in mind that Max Bently and Turk Broda know each other very well. Bentley knows Broda's weak points. He knows how to beat Broda. And you can be sure he's communicated that to his teammates.
One other factor not mentioned: motivation. We want to beat this Montreal team. My team lost to Montreal in ATD #6 in the conference final. Esa Tikkanen was on our team. He remembers that. And we have two key personel from HO's championship team: Bower and Ivan. They want to prove what they can do away from HO. (Incidentally, Bower has been to the conference championship in the first two drafts).
It'll be a rough-and-tumble seven game series. One-goal games a-plenty. But motivation is a big factor, as is the Bentley-Broda factor. Halifax in 7.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,174
- 14,547
RE: Motivation.
How do you qualify that? These are completely different teams and in your case even a different city with a different co-GM. I don't really think motivation is a factor at all, besides the fact that both teams desperately want to win their division.
How do you qualify that? These are completely different teams and in your case even a different city with a different co-GM. I don't really think motivation is a factor at all, besides the fact that both teams desperately want to win their division.
There's not much between these two teams for sure.
I like Halifax's top line and Montreal's second line. I think that's how the advantages play out. Otherwise geez I have a hard time pointing to an obvious advantage on either side. Bourque vs. Potvin I like Bourque, but Stanley vs. Howell I like Howell.
I prefer Jarvis to Primeau by a fair bit, but I'm also a huge Tik fan and I think he could be a key to the series. Tik is at his best in this kind of a series.
I like having Shack on that fourth line. He should bring a good spark in his relatively few minutes I would imagine.
I think I like the second pairing a little better for Halifax, but I like Montreal's third pairing better. 6 of one, half a dozen of another.
Broda vs. Bower again as GBC said is pretty much a wash.
Arbour I think is the best coach in the series, but it's not a significant advantage over Ivan. The leadership is really strong on both sides.
I'm going to wait a bit before making up my mind. Still undecided.
I like Halifax's top line and Montreal's second line. I think that's how the advantages play out. Otherwise geez I have a hard time pointing to an obvious advantage on either side. Bourque vs. Potvin I like Bourque, but Stanley vs. Howell I like Howell.
I prefer Jarvis to Primeau by a fair bit, but I'm also a huge Tik fan and I think he could be a key to the series. Tik is at his best in this kind of a series.
I like having Shack on that fourth line. He should bring a good spark in his relatively few minutes I would imagine.
I think I like the second pairing a little better for Halifax, but I like Montreal's third pairing better. 6 of one, half a dozen of another.
Broda vs. Bower again as GBC said is pretty much a wash.
Arbour I think is the best coach in the series, but it's not a significant advantage over Ivan. The leadership is really strong on both sides.
I'm going to wait a bit before making up my mind. Still undecided.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,174
- 14,547
Second line
The Canadiens have a decisive advantage when comparing top lines. Halifax’s #2 centre, Buddy O’Connor had a great year in 1948 when he won the Hart, but was otherwise very mediocre by ATD standards—no great playoff runs, no Hart/all-star consideration, and only one other top-ten finish in points (during WW2). My centre, Jean Ratelle matches O’Connor's peak—Ratelle finished third in scoring in 1972 (only behind Orr & Esposito), won the Pearson trophy, and was the #1 two-way centre on Team Canada’s victorious Summit Series team. Ratelle is far more consistent too, finishing in the top ten in scoring seven times in ten years, had multiple strong playoff runs (1971, 1976, 1977), and spent several years in the top ten in Hart voting (1972, 1976, 1977). Ratelle gives me a significant advantage on the second line, matching O’Connor’s peak and easily beating his consistency.
Taylor and Smith, the RWs, are similar in style but not talent. Both players were feared and respected for being tough, aggressive opponents who were willing to do anything to win. Both can drop the gloves and stand up for their teammates. But the similarities end there—Taylor had a few high-scoring years in LA but wasn’t an offensive catalyst. In contrast, Smith was a 2-time all-star, a 2-time Hart finalist, and retired as the 4th-highest scoring player in NHL history. He was outscored only by Morenz, Joliat, Cook, Boucher and Stewart during his decade-long prime. Essentially Smith matches Taylor’s toughness and aggression but easily beats his offensive talent.
Finally, Hadfield and D. Hull are pretty similar in that they’re solid teammates but can’t carry a line. Hadfield obviously has the edge in toughness while Hull was a bit better defensively. People underestimate Hadfield’s offense. Sure, his 50-goal, 106-point season was unexpected, but he actually had a few 30-goal seasons too, playing on a weak Pittsburgh team past his prime.
I think that the difference in the second lines is key to the series. Even if Halifax contains my top line, there’s still the very dangerous, tough and high-scoring Ratelle line waiting. Halifax doesn’t have the same scoring depth and, if their top line is contained, they probably won’t score enough to win four games. Their bottom two lines provide relatively little offense and I've outlined why the second line can't carry the team.
Containing Halifax’s top line
Well, I said earlier that Halifax had one of the best top lines in the draft, and who am I to argue with myself? With that said, the Canadiens have the tools necessary to stop them. If we look at Montreal’s top line versus Halifax’s, the difference is smaller than most would think. I have the best player on either line in Lalonde, a three-time NHL scoring champion. He beats Max Bentley’s scoring touch, equals his playoff performances, and easily tops his level of physical play. Cournoyer and Neely are equals offensively, and were both top playoff performers, though I’ll give Neely the edge due to his physical play. The only position where Halifax has the big edge is at LW for obvious reasons (though both had problems—neither player had more than 20-odd playoff games and Simmer’s lack of health/consistency is matched by the fact that half of Doug Bentley’s accomplishments came during the war years).
Given that Montreal has home-ice advantage, we will play our third line against the Bentley(s) whenever possible. My LW, Don Marcotte, was described as a tough fighter who was willing to battle for pucks along the boards, and was willing to drop the gloves when necessary. Marcotte was known for his tenacity and work ethic. His relentless, pest-like play should be enough to contain Neely; after all, he did just shut down Gordie Howe in the previous round. Pit Martin, a top penalty killer fresh off shutting down Roy Conacher, should be able to contain Doug Bentley, and is one of the few defensive forwards in the draft that can match D. Bentley’s speed. Doug Jarvis made a career countering the opponents’ #1 centre, and did so on a dynasty team. He won’t shut down Max Bentley completely, but he should contain him. Additionally, Jarvis was one of the greatest face-off winners in NHL history, so the Bentley line will have fewer chances of starting with the puck in the offensive zone.
Potvin and Howell will be on the ice at all times against the Bentley line. Potvin will be assigned to cover Neely; Potvin could easily outskate Neely and has the strength, toughness and determination necessary to contain him. I’m not sure which player is tougher, but Neely (coming off two series including a war with the Raiders) should be far more fatigued than the well-rest Potvin. Howell (a positional defender) will be assigned to the Bentley; they’re an ideal matchup for him because Howell is one of the few defenders with sufficient enough speed and lateral movement to cover Max Bentley, and Howell’s (relative) lack of physical play can’t be exploited by the perennial Byng candidate Bentley brothers.
Speed
Allan Stanley’s his lack of speed can be exploited by my very fast top-tier players (Lalonde, Cournoyer, Pronovost and, to a lesser extent, Potvin were all among the fastest players of their generation). Yes, I realize that Stanley was a smart positional NHLer—but he did this playing against average NHL opponents that ranged from fast to slow. In this context, Stanley will constantly face three of the fastest players of all-time, for 20+ minutes per game. Expect a few breakaways or odd-man rushes against when the Cournoyer/Lalonde duo applies pressure.
While I like Halifax’s third line, this is a very bad matchup for them in terms of speed. George Armstrong was described as a “slow and clumsy skater†(source 1; source 2) and Keith Primeau has average speed. Having a relatively slow checking line against my very fast top line should allow the Canadiens to have many high-probability odd-man rushes against Bower.
Fatigue/motivation/intangibles
I doubt that motivation (i.e. avenging a loss in ATD #6) will be a major factor here. All of my stars (Broda, Potvin, Lalonde, Arbour, Cournoyer & Pronovost) except Howell (whose playoff resume is essentially incomplete) were big-time playoff performers. They all know about what it takes to compete and win in NHL, NHA and international playoffs and tournaments. These players play to win, regardless of the opponent.
In terms of intangibles, I should point out that the Canadiens had a bye in the first round and beat a tough opponent in the second round. Halifax has already played two full rounds, including a six-game war against (arguably) the toughest, most physical team in the draft (NY Raiders). My players will be more prepared and in better physical condition.
Goaltending & coaching
I agree that we’re close in these categories, but Montreal still has the edge in both. I’ll take an edge, even if it’s a small one, in these two crucial areas.
Broda and Bower are similar in that they’re both good regular season goalies that turn into great playoff performers, but Broda still has the edge by most measures. In an old post, BM67 showed that Broda had the all-time best GAA improvement (from regular season to playoffs), easily beating Bower, and had the 4th-largest improvement in win% (again, easily beating Bower). Given that Broda won more Cups playing behind a weaker blueline (5 – 4), and was elected to more all-star teams (3 – 1), I think he’s definitely the better goalie than Bower. It’s still close, of course, but there’s an edge to Broda.
The coaches are also similar (both were calm, patient, favoured a balance between O and D, and got the most out of their depth players). Still, Al Arbour is, at worst, the consensus #3 coach of all-time. I think very highly of Ivan but he’s still in the next tier down (along with Day, Imlach, Adams, etc.) Arbour has an edge due to longevity, which gives him more experience in terms of learning and countering opponents’ strategies, developing players, and leading different and managing different styles of players in the dressing room. Arbour also proved that he could have success as an underdog (beating Lemieux’s Penguins in ’93 while missing his best player).
Final thoughts
Overall, I agree with GBC that there will be lots of low-scoring games. However, the big advantage in our second line more than offsets the small advantage Halifax has with their top line, and our better speed, goaltending and coaching will allow us to win a hard-fought seven-game series.
The Canadiens have a decisive advantage when comparing top lines. Halifax’s #2 centre, Buddy O’Connor had a great year in 1948 when he won the Hart, but was otherwise very mediocre by ATD standards—no great playoff runs, no Hart/all-star consideration, and only one other top-ten finish in points (during WW2). My centre, Jean Ratelle matches O’Connor's peak—Ratelle finished third in scoring in 1972 (only behind Orr & Esposito), won the Pearson trophy, and was the #1 two-way centre on Team Canada’s victorious Summit Series team. Ratelle is far more consistent too, finishing in the top ten in scoring seven times in ten years, had multiple strong playoff runs (1971, 1976, 1977), and spent several years in the top ten in Hart voting (1972, 1976, 1977). Ratelle gives me a significant advantage on the second line, matching O’Connor’s peak and easily beating his consistency.
Taylor and Smith, the RWs, are similar in style but not talent. Both players were feared and respected for being tough, aggressive opponents who were willing to do anything to win. Both can drop the gloves and stand up for their teammates. But the similarities end there—Taylor had a few high-scoring years in LA but wasn’t an offensive catalyst. In contrast, Smith was a 2-time all-star, a 2-time Hart finalist, and retired as the 4th-highest scoring player in NHL history. He was outscored only by Morenz, Joliat, Cook, Boucher and Stewart during his decade-long prime. Essentially Smith matches Taylor’s toughness and aggression but easily beats his offensive talent.
Finally, Hadfield and D. Hull are pretty similar in that they’re solid teammates but can’t carry a line. Hadfield obviously has the edge in toughness while Hull was a bit better defensively. People underestimate Hadfield’s offense. Sure, his 50-goal, 106-point season was unexpected, but he actually had a few 30-goal seasons too, playing on a weak Pittsburgh team past his prime.
I think that the difference in the second lines is key to the series. Even if Halifax contains my top line, there’s still the very dangerous, tough and high-scoring Ratelle line waiting. Halifax doesn’t have the same scoring depth and, if their top line is contained, they probably won’t score enough to win four games. Their bottom two lines provide relatively little offense and I've outlined why the second line can't carry the team.
Containing Halifax’s top line
Well, I said earlier that Halifax had one of the best top lines in the draft, and who am I to argue with myself? With that said, the Canadiens have the tools necessary to stop them. If we look at Montreal’s top line versus Halifax’s, the difference is smaller than most would think. I have the best player on either line in Lalonde, a three-time NHL scoring champion. He beats Max Bentley’s scoring touch, equals his playoff performances, and easily tops his level of physical play. Cournoyer and Neely are equals offensively, and were both top playoff performers, though I’ll give Neely the edge due to his physical play. The only position where Halifax has the big edge is at LW for obvious reasons (though both had problems—neither player had more than 20-odd playoff games and Simmer’s lack of health/consistency is matched by the fact that half of Doug Bentley’s accomplishments came during the war years).
Given that Montreal has home-ice advantage, we will play our third line against the Bentley(s) whenever possible. My LW, Don Marcotte, was described as a tough fighter who was willing to battle for pucks along the boards, and was willing to drop the gloves when necessary. Marcotte was known for his tenacity and work ethic. His relentless, pest-like play should be enough to contain Neely; after all, he did just shut down Gordie Howe in the previous round. Pit Martin, a top penalty killer fresh off shutting down Roy Conacher, should be able to contain Doug Bentley, and is one of the few defensive forwards in the draft that can match D. Bentley’s speed. Doug Jarvis made a career countering the opponents’ #1 centre, and did so on a dynasty team. He won’t shut down Max Bentley completely, but he should contain him. Additionally, Jarvis was one of the greatest face-off winners in NHL history, so the Bentley line will have fewer chances of starting with the puck in the offensive zone.
Potvin and Howell will be on the ice at all times against the Bentley line. Potvin will be assigned to cover Neely; Potvin could easily outskate Neely and has the strength, toughness and determination necessary to contain him. I’m not sure which player is tougher, but Neely (coming off two series including a war with the Raiders) should be far more fatigued than the well-rest Potvin. Howell (a positional defender) will be assigned to the Bentley; they’re an ideal matchup for him because Howell is one of the few defenders with sufficient enough speed and lateral movement to cover Max Bentley, and Howell’s (relative) lack of physical play can’t be exploited by the perennial Byng candidate Bentley brothers.
Speed
Allan Stanley’s his lack of speed can be exploited by my very fast top-tier players (Lalonde, Cournoyer, Pronovost and, to a lesser extent, Potvin were all among the fastest players of their generation). Yes, I realize that Stanley was a smart positional NHLer—but he did this playing against average NHL opponents that ranged from fast to slow. In this context, Stanley will constantly face three of the fastest players of all-time, for 20+ minutes per game. Expect a few breakaways or odd-man rushes against when the Cournoyer/Lalonde duo applies pressure.
While I like Halifax’s third line, this is a very bad matchup for them in terms of speed. George Armstrong was described as a “slow and clumsy skater†(source 1; source 2) and Keith Primeau has average speed. Having a relatively slow checking line against my very fast top line should allow the Canadiens to have many high-probability odd-man rushes against Bower.
Fatigue/motivation/intangibles
I doubt that motivation (i.e. avenging a loss in ATD #6) will be a major factor here. All of my stars (Broda, Potvin, Lalonde, Arbour, Cournoyer & Pronovost) except Howell (whose playoff resume is essentially incomplete) were big-time playoff performers. They all know about what it takes to compete and win in NHL, NHA and international playoffs and tournaments. These players play to win, regardless of the opponent.
In terms of intangibles, I should point out that the Canadiens had a bye in the first round and beat a tough opponent in the second round. Halifax has already played two full rounds, including a six-game war against (arguably) the toughest, most physical team in the draft (NY Raiders). My players will be more prepared and in better physical condition.
Goaltending & coaching
I agree that we’re close in these categories, but Montreal still has the edge in both. I’ll take an edge, even if it’s a small one, in these two crucial areas.
Broda and Bower are similar in that they’re both good regular season goalies that turn into great playoff performers, but Broda still has the edge by most measures. In an old post, BM67 showed that Broda had the all-time best GAA improvement (from regular season to playoffs), easily beating Bower, and had the 4th-largest improvement in win% (again, easily beating Bower). Given that Broda won more Cups playing behind a weaker blueline (5 – 4), and was elected to more all-star teams (3 – 1), I think he’s definitely the better goalie than Bower. It’s still close, of course, but there’s an edge to Broda.
The coaches are also similar (both were calm, patient, favoured a balance between O and D, and got the most out of their depth players). Still, Al Arbour is, at worst, the consensus #3 coach of all-time. I think very highly of Ivan but he’s still in the next tier down (along with Day, Imlach, Adams, etc.) Arbour has an edge due to longevity, which gives him more experience in terms of learning and countering opponents’ strategies, developing players, and leading different and managing different styles of players in the dressing room. Arbour also proved that he could have success as an underdog (beating Lemieux’s Penguins in ’93 while missing his best player).
Final thoughts
Overall, I agree with GBC that there will be lots of low-scoring games. However, the big advantage in our second line more than offsets the small advantage Halifax has with their top line, and our better speed, goaltending and coaching will allow us to win a hard-fought seven-game series.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
A few more thoughts:
- I have to agree with HO that "motivation" to avenge a previous loss or show up a previous GM won't be a factor here. I think GBC and I simply draw the line at different places when assessing the "reality" of ATD situations. I didn't really understand the argument in the last round that Wisent's knowledge of Holecek would help his team on the ice, but I let that one lie. This is highly subjective stuff and I don't think my point of view is necessarily the correct one, but it's worth pointing out because I find it interesting how differently two different GMs can view the specifics of these scenarios.
- in transition, Halifax's relatively slow shutdown unit of Bourque - Stanley - Tikkanen - Primeau - Armstrong may have some problems against Montreal's top line. Mitigating factors include the fact that the slowest of the checkers (Armstrong) is matched against another slower skater in Charlie Simmer and that Rob Ramage (I assume from HO's comments that it is Pronovost - Ramage who will support the 1st line most of the time) isn't a great skater or offensive player. But the troika of Potvin - Lalonde - Cournoyer is certainly quite dangerous in transition and may give Halifax's top unit trouble at even strength.
- down low on the cycle, however, I think Halifax has the advantage. Cournoyer had tremendous lower body strength and wasn't easy to knock off the puck for a man his size, but against much bigger men like Stanley, Armstrong, etc. he's going to struggle a bit. Simmer and Ramage simply don't have high-end offensive skills. I think Halifax will be very effective in breaking up the cycle of Montreal's top line.
- the edge on the 2nd line clearly belongs to Montreal. Ratelle vs. O'Connor is not close and Smith's all-around game beats Dave Taylor while neither left wing is outstanding.
- with Cam Neely at 100%, Halifax's top line is a frightening unit. If Cam is hurting, the line will still be very strong in transition, but will struggle down low in the offensive zone. Whether or not you believe Neely is at 100% depends on how much you think the physicality of the New York Raiders and the Marcotte/Potvin due will take it's toll on Cam's body. Halifax was lucky to face a softish Regina team in the opening round, so the last round was Neely's first real physical test, though the Raiders were easily the most physical team in the draft.
- for Montreal, Charlie Simmer is the only player who's a real health concern (Cournoyer had some back trouble, but he was already past his peak when that happened so I don't think much of it) coming off the last round against a very physical Seattle team. Simmer is already arguably the weakest 1st liner (and 1st unit PP player) remaining in these playoffs due to questions about his consistency and playoff experience; if he's not at 100%, that makes matters worse.
- if I was Halifax's GM, I might consider putting a left wing lock in place for this round, and Ivan is a good enough coach to realistically implement such a system. Montreal is very weak on the left wing scoringlines, so locking down the Hab's right side in the neutral zone (which is what a left wing lock would do) will force the puck to Hadfield and Simmer and make them beat you in transition, which plays into Halifax's hands, in my opinion. Halifax's left wings are all strong defensively, so this system has both the coach and the personnel to be effective, in my opinion.
- I would also consider matching the 1st lines straight across on home ice if I was Halifax's GM. Doug Bentley's 2-way excellence is a perfect counter to Cournoyer and Cam Neely would simply dominate Charlie Simmer and may take less of a beating against an opposing checker with serious health questions of his own. I agree with HO that Lalonde is a better all-around player than Max Bentley, but I still think the line match here really favors Halifax. Doug Bentley locking down Cournoyer on the left wing means most of the time Charlie Simmer will have to beat Stanley on his side for the Habs to gain the zone with any kind of speed.
- Broda and Bower the two best playoff goalies in the draft?! Give me any one of Roy, Hasek and Plante over those two without even thinking about it. That said, Roy, Hasek and Plante are all sitting at home right now, and Bower and Broda are certainly among the best playoff goalies remaining. Although Bower was excellent in the postseason, I still give Broda the slight edge. That is counterbalanced, however, by the fact that I like Hughie Lehman better than either of Montreal's backups. As backups can be expected to play at least one game in a series that goes to seven, an edge at backup is a tangible advantage, although not a huge one. All things considered, I think the goaltending matchup is close.
- I have to agree with HO that "motivation" to avenge a previous loss or show up a previous GM won't be a factor here. I think GBC and I simply draw the line at different places when assessing the "reality" of ATD situations. I didn't really understand the argument in the last round that Wisent's knowledge of Holecek would help his team on the ice, but I let that one lie. This is highly subjective stuff and I don't think my point of view is necessarily the correct one, but it's worth pointing out because I find it interesting how differently two different GMs can view the specifics of these scenarios.
- in transition, Halifax's relatively slow shutdown unit of Bourque - Stanley - Tikkanen - Primeau - Armstrong may have some problems against Montreal's top line. Mitigating factors include the fact that the slowest of the checkers (Armstrong) is matched against another slower skater in Charlie Simmer and that Rob Ramage (I assume from HO's comments that it is Pronovost - Ramage who will support the 1st line most of the time) isn't a great skater or offensive player. But the troika of Potvin - Lalonde - Cournoyer is certainly quite dangerous in transition and may give Halifax's top unit trouble at even strength.
- down low on the cycle, however, I think Halifax has the advantage. Cournoyer had tremendous lower body strength and wasn't easy to knock off the puck for a man his size, but against much bigger men like Stanley, Armstrong, etc. he's going to struggle a bit. Simmer and Ramage simply don't have high-end offensive skills. I think Halifax will be very effective in breaking up the cycle of Montreal's top line.
- the edge on the 2nd line clearly belongs to Montreal. Ratelle vs. O'Connor is not close and Smith's all-around game beats Dave Taylor while neither left wing is outstanding.
- with Cam Neely at 100%, Halifax's top line is a frightening unit. If Cam is hurting, the line will still be very strong in transition, but will struggle down low in the offensive zone. Whether or not you believe Neely is at 100% depends on how much you think the physicality of the New York Raiders and the Marcotte/Potvin due will take it's toll on Cam's body. Halifax was lucky to face a softish Regina team in the opening round, so the last round was Neely's first real physical test, though the Raiders were easily the most physical team in the draft.
- for Montreal, Charlie Simmer is the only player who's a real health concern (Cournoyer had some back trouble, but he was already past his peak when that happened so I don't think much of it) coming off the last round against a very physical Seattle team. Simmer is already arguably the weakest 1st liner (and 1st unit PP player) remaining in these playoffs due to questions about his consistency and playoff experience; if he's not at 100%, that makes matters worse.
- if I was Halifax's GM, I might consider putting a left wing lock in place for this round, and Ivan is a good enough coach to realistically implement such a system. Montreal is very weak on the left wing scoringlines, so locking down the Hab's right side in the neutral zone (which is what a left wing lock would do) will force the puck to Hadfield and Simmer and make them beat you in transition, which plays into Halifax's hands, in my opinion. Halifax's left wings are all strong defensively, so this system has both the coach and the personnel to be effective, in my opinion.
- I would also consider matching the 1st lines straight across on home ice if I was Halifax's GM. Doug Bentley's 2-way excellence is a perfect counter to Cournoyer and Cam Neely would simply dominate Charlie Simmer and may take less of a beating against an opposing checker with serious health questions of his own. I agree with HO that Lalonde is a better all-around player than Max Bentley, but I still think the line match here really favors Halifax. Doug Bentley locking down Cournoyer on the left wing means most of the time Charlie Simmer will have to beat Stanley on his side for the Habs to gain the zone with any kind of speed.
- Broda and Bower the two best playoff goalies in the draft?! Give me any one of Roy, Hasek and Plante over those two without even thinking about it. That said, Roy, Hasek and Plante are all sitting at home right now, and Bower and Broda are certainly among the best playoff goalies remaining. Although Bower was excellent in the postseason, I still give Broda the slight edge. That is counterbalanced, however, by the fact that I like Hughie Lehman better than either of Montreal's backups. As backups can be expected to play at least one game in a series that goes to seven, an edge at backup is a tangible advantage, although not a huge one. All things considered, I think the goaltending matchup is close.
Just to clarify: when I said that Broda and Bower are the two best goalies in the draft, I meant to say that they're the two best goalies left in the draft. And not just in the playoffs. Period. I know there are some GMs who have one of, or both of them, in their top 10. They're both capable of stealing a series.
I think there'll be three or four 1-0 type games in this series.
Sturm, we do plan on keying on Montreal's centre-right wing tandem on their first two lines. Nothing against Simmer and Hadfield, but I think Simmer's better suited to second line duty, maybe even a third line scoring winger role. Hadfield should be a fourth liner, and the only reason to put him on a second line is his rapport with Ratelle. He had more than 30 goals twice, and more than 31 once. And he played most of his career at a time when 30 goals was attainable.
With all due respect to Simmer and Hadfield, Simmer is likely the worst first line player left in the draft, and from an offensive standpoint, Hadfield is likely the worst on a second line.
Don't underestimate our fourth line. We're confident that Risebrough, Maltby and the very underrated Schmautz can contain Montreal's scoring lines. As stated before, to a certain extent, it might make sense to play the speed of the Risebrough line against the speed of the Lalonde line, and use the grit of the Primeau line against the grit of the Ratelle line. Either way, every player on our bottom six forwards have grit, toughness and defensive awareness in spades, all of them have experience playing against the top scorers of the opposition, and in the case of Tikkanen, Armstrong and Schmautz, they've had some excellent post-season performances offensively. And in those 1-0, 2-1 type games, a guy on the third or fourth line who can step up and get you a timely goal, while maintaining his defensive presence, could be the difference.
Halifax will be able to get a more offence from our third and fourth liners. Pit Martin and Troy Murray had one offensively productive post-season each. Marcotte wasn't a consistent offensive factor in the post-season. Bonin's the only player on Montreal's bottom six who had consistently productive post-seasons while maintaining his defensive play.
Armstrong wasn't fast, but he was very, very smart. Excellent positioning. Controlled the boards. Speed's important. But hockey sense is more important. His smarts, positioning, second effort and relentless more than compensate for his foot speed. This is NOT a bad match-up for the Chief; he's lining up against Simmer and Hadfield. Those aren't skating stars.
I think some of you are underrating Primeau's skating. He was a really good skater, not just for a man of his size, but he was a really good skater in general. I think that's one of the reasons he did so well on the international stage is his skating helped him in the transition to the big ice.
I think there'll be three or four 1-0 type games in this series.
Sturm, we do plan on keying on Montreal's centre-right wing tandem on their first two lines. Nothing against Simmer and Hadfield, but I think Simmer's better suited to second line duty, maybe even a third line scoring winger role. Hadfield should be a fourth liner, and the only reason to put him on a second line is his rapport with Ratelle. He had more than 30 goals twice, and more than 31 once. And he played most of his career at a time when 30 goals was attainable.
With all due respect to Simmer and Hadfield, Simmer is likely the worst first line player left in the draft, and from an offensive standpoint, Hadfield is likely the worst on a second line.
Don't underestimate our fourth line. We're confident that Risebrough, Maltby and the very underrated Schmautz can contain Montreal's scoring lines. As stated before, to a certain extent, it might make sense to play the speed of the Risebrough line against the speed of the Lalonde line, and use the grit of the Primeau line against the grit of the Ratelle line. Either way, every player on our bottom six forwards have grit, toughness and defensive awareness in spades, all of them have experience playing against the top scorers of the opposition, and in the case of Tikkanen, Armstrong and Schmautz, they've had some excellent post-season performances offensively. And in those 1-0, 2-1 type games, a guy on the third or fourth line who can step up and get you a timely goal, while maintaining his defensive presence, could be the difference.
Halifax will be able to get a more offence from our third and fourth liners. Pit Martin and Troy Murray had one offensively productive post-season each. Marcotte wasn't a consistent offensive factor in the post-season. Bonin's the only player on Montreal's bottom six who had consistently productive post-seasons while maintaining his defensive play.
Armstrong wasn't fast, but he was very, very smart. Excellent positioning. Controlled the boards. Speed's important. But hockey sense is more important. His smarts, positioning, second effort and relentless more than compensate for his foot speed. This is NOT a bad match-up for the Chief; he's lining up against Simmer and Hadfield. Those aren't skating stars.
I think some of you are underrating Primeau's skating. He was a really good skater, not just for a man of his size, but he was a really good skater in general. I think that's one of the reasons he did so well on the international stage is his skating helped him in the transition to the big ice.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,174
- 14,547
Matching first lines
While I agree that matching first lines is Halifax’s best strategy on home ice, I don’t think it is a large enough advantage to determine the outcome of the series. First, as I’ve already established, my second line has a significant advantage in scoring. As our first lines play each other, there will be increasing pressure for the second line to step up their game. Ratelle proved he could for an entire decade, matching O’Connor’s peak; O’Connor only really dominated for a single year. Smith, a six-time top-ten scorer and the 4th-most productive player in NHL history upon retirement, will significantly outscore Taylor. And, as I will argue below, I will get more offense from my bottom two lines as well. Finally, if nothing else, Pierre Turgeon’s brilliant playmaking and multiple 100-point seasons might provide a temporary spark (though I concede that he is ill-suited for this style of series and I probably won't play him).
Even if we do match top lines in Halifax, I’ve outlined before why the style of play still favours Montreal (even if Halifax has an advantage in terms of personnel). Potvin is one of the few defensemen with the strength, toughness and determination to contain Neely; Howell (with his disciplined positional play and great lateral movement) has the ability to contain the non-physical Bentleys. While Bourque vs. Lalonde will be a war, Stanley will be repeatedly exposed by the fast stickhandling of Cournoyer.
Hull vs. Hadfield
I disagree that Hadfield is the least productive second-liner remaining because, if nothing else, he will outscore Hull. Hadfield had the better peak between the two (106 pts vs. 90 pts in their best year) and Hadfield has more points-per-game in the regular season (0.71 vs. 0.68) and playoffs (0.65 vs. 0.64) though of course the difference is small.
The best we can say is that Hull and Hadfield are equals offensively. But Hadfield is playing with a consistent, all-time great playmaker (Ratelle) and a dominant scorer who retired 4th all-time in points (Smith), while Hull is playing with two inconsistent players that have fewer top-ten scoring finishes combined than either Ratelle or Smith have on their own. Given the context, Hadfield will surely outscore Hull.
Depth scoring
I definitely disagree that Halifax's bottom two lines will outscore mine.
Pit Martin is the best offensive player on any of the depth lines, with four 70+ point seasons including a 61-assist campaign, a 51-assist season, and, in addition to those two years, three 30+ goal seasons. As a playmaker, Martin should make his linemates more dangerous and should be a SHG threat. Don Marcotte consistently proved he could put the puck in the net (20 goals seven times in nine years) and will benefit from playing with an elite playmaker. He’s also a SHG threat. I'll agree that Doug Jarvis provides very little offense, but that's not his job. In contrast, Primeau was never anything better than average defensively during his high-scoring years. If Halifax wants 60-point Primeau, he'd have to lose considerable defensive ability and I don't think Halifax wants to make that trade-off. Armstrong and Tiikanen were solid scorers but never had a peak as good as Martin.
On the fourth line, Marcel Bonin finished between 15th and 20th in scoring during his best years (not great, but much better than anybody on Halifax's 4th line). This, combined with his 1959 PO run (first in goals, 2nd in points), give him the offensive advantage over any player on either the 4th lines. Troy Murray had better single-season than any player on either line (45 goals, 99 points) but don't underestimate his consistency (with years of 71 pts, 66 pts, and a few more 20-goal campaigns). Finally, while I agree that Schamutz is a solid scorer, Maltby, Riseborough and Shack all provide minimal offense.
LW lock
While I agree that Ivan has the ability to implement a LW lock, Arbour has the ability to counter it. A LW lock requires the defensive team to have a great forechecker and the ability to capitalize on neutral zone turnovers. Halifax has some great forecheckers, but my tough, physical, durable defensemen should be able to withstand the pressure. Potvin, Pronvost and Ramage were all good rushers, too, and will be able to bring the puck up the ice themselves if necessary.
Furthermore, the LW lock requires the team setting it up to play relatively conservatively and hope for a neutral zone turnover. Conservative play isn’t the right strategy for Halifax given my offensive advantage on the bottom three lines. Additionally, all of my defensemen, with the exception of Ramage (who was merely good defensively) were excellent in the defensive and neutral zone, so Halifax will have to wait a long time for each turnover. I would be that my speedy, stickhandling forwards break through the neutral zone a lot more often than Potvin or Howell turn the puck over.
While I agree that matching first lines is Halifax’s best strategy on home ice, I don’t think it is a large enough advantage to determine the outcome of the series. First, as I’ve already established, my second line has a significant advantage in scoring. As our first lines play each other, there will be increasing pressure for the second line to step up their game. Ratelle proved he could for an entire decade, matching O’Connor’s peak; O’Connor only really dominated for a single year. Smith, a six-time top-ten scorer and the 4th-most productive player in NHL history upon retirement, will significantly outscore Taylor. And, as I will argue below, I will get more offense from my bottom two lines as well. Finally, if nothing else, Pierre Turgeon’s brilliant playmaking and multiple 100-point seasons might provide a temporary spark (though I concede that he is ill-suited for this style of series and I probably won't play him).
Even if we do match top lines in Halifax, I’ve outlined before why the style of play still favours Montreal (even if Halifax has an advantage in terms of personnel). Potvin is one of the few defensemen with the strength, toughness and determination to contain Neely; Howell (with his disciplined positional play and great lateral movement) has the ability to contain the non-physical Bentleys. While Bourque vs. Lalonde will be a war, Stanley will be repeatedly exposed by the fast stickhandling of Cournoyer.
Hull vs. Hadfield
I disagree that Hadfield is the least productive second-liner remaining because, if nothing else, he will outscore Hull. Hadfield had the better peak between the two (106 pts vs. 90 pts in their best year) and Hadfield has more points-per-game in the regular season (0.71 vs. 0.68) and playoffs (0.65 vs. 0.64) though of course the difference is small.
The best we can say is that Hull and Hadfield are equals offensively. But Hadfield is playing with a consistent, all-time great playmaker (Ratelle) and a dominant scorer who retired 4th all-time in points (Smith), while Hull is playing with two inconsistent players that have fewer top-ten scoring finishes combined than either Ratelle or Smith have on their own. Given the context, Hadfield will surely outscore Hull.
Depth scoring
I definitely disagree that Halifax's bottom two lines will outscore mine.
Pit Martin is the best offensive player on any of the depth lines, with four 70+ point seasons including a 61-assist campaign, a 51-assist season, and, in addition to those two years, three 30+ goal seasons. As a playmaker, Martin should make his linemates more dangerous and should be a SHG threat. Don Marcotte consistently proved he could put the puck in the net (20 goals seven times in nine years) and will benefit from playing with an elite playmaker. He’s also a SHG threat. I'll agree that Doug Jarvis provides very little offense, but that's not his job. In contrast, Primeau was never anything better than average defensively during his high-scoring years. If Halifax wants 60-point Primeau, he'd have to lose considerable defensive ability and I don't think Halifax wants to make that trade-off. Armstrong and Tiikanen were solid scorers but never had a peak as good as Martin.
On the fourth line, Marcel Bonin finished between 15th and 20th in scoring during his best years (not great, but much better than anybody on Halifax's 4th line). This, combined with his 1959 PO run (first in goals, 2nd in points), give him the offensive advantage over any player on either the 4th lines. Troy Murray had better single-season than any player on either line (45 goals, 99 points) but don't underestimate his consistency (with years of 71 pts, 66 pts, and a few more 20-goal campaigns). Finally, while I agree that Schamutz is a solid scorer, Maltby, Riseborough and Shack all provide minimal offense.
LW lock
While I agree that Ivan has the ability to implement a LW lock, Arbour has the ability to counter it. A LW lock requires the defensive team to have a great forechecker and the ability to capitalize on neutral zone turnovers. Halifax has some great forecheckers, but my tough, physical, durable defensemen should be able to withstand the pressure. Potvin, Pronvost and Ramage were all good rushers, too, and will be able to bring the puck up the ice themselves if necessary.
Furthermore, the LW lock requires the team setting it up to play relatively conservatively and hope for a neutral zone turnover. Conservative play isn’t the right strategy for Halifax given my offensive advantage on the bottom three lines. Additionally, all of my defensemen, with the exception of Ramage (who was merely good defensively) were excellent in the defensive and neutral zone, so Halifax will have to wait a long time for each turnover. I would be that my speedy, stickhandling forwards break through the neutral zone a lot more often than Potvin or Howell turn the puck over.
HO's third and fourth line forwards might have an edge in production in the regular season, but the playoffs are completely different. And in the playoffs, Halifax's forwards are more productive.
Pit Martin might be the best offensive forward in the regular season, but come playoff time, he was not as productive as Tikkanen or Armstrong, when evaluating the full body of work.
Tik was lauded as a top-notch playoff performer. It's his clutch playoff performance, while maintaining his defensive excellence, physical play and abrasive style, that led us to pick him so high, ahead of Dumart and Ramsay. 27 points in 19 games in 88; 24 in 22 in 90; 20 in 18 in 91; and the "icing on the cake" nine goals in 15 games for the Rangers in 1997. In the playoffs, Tikkanen is the best offensive player on a third or fourth line in this series. And he won five Cups, too.
I'd say that George Armstrong is the second-best playoff scorer of anyone in this series. Scored at nearly a point-per-game clip in the playoffs from 62-64. Not bad for a guy who a) played in the Original Six era, when he was facing an HHOF goalie every night; b) played on a very defence-first Leafs team; and c) was never a big regular season scorer.
Maltby won't get us much. We know that. And we're fine with that. There were a couple of more offensively talented LWs that we were looking at, who brought Maltby's speed and defensive play, but we decided to go with Maltby because of his physical jam, work ethic and size. (Some guys in this draft have a big hard-on for forwards more than six feet tall).
Primeau had the monster playoff in 2004, when he put that Philly team on his back. Even Risebrough had a few playoffs with reasonable production. (Even though he was never in a position to be an offensive player in Montreal).
Pit Martin? During his six-year peak, he had 39 points in 55 post-season games. (Missed the playoffs in 69). That's a pace lower than Bobby Schmautz, who scored at about a 70-point pace in the post-season during his six-year peak. (He also missed a playoff year).
Nobody on Montreal's third or fourth line sustained post-season production on a year-to-year basis. I mentioned Bonin earlier; actually, take away the one big playoff, he has 10 points in 39 games.
The edge in third and fourth line scoring, in the playoffs, goes to Halifax. Big-time. If HO wants to cite a bunch of regular season stats, that's really nice. This is the playoffs. In these 1-0 and 2-1 games, when both teams top lines will be facing excellent checking lines (we know that any line centre by Doug Jarvis is going to be extremely difficult to score against), it'll be a third or fourth liner, who manages to pot the big goal, who will be the difference.
Pit Martin might be the best offensive forward in the regular season, but come playoff time, he was not as productive as Tikkanen or Armstrong, when evaluating the full body of work.
Tik was lauded as a top-notch playoff performer. It's his clutch playoff performance, while maintaining his defensive excellence, physical play and abrasive style, that led us to pick him so high, ahead of Dumart and Ramsay. 27 points in 19 games in 88; 24 in 22 in 90; 20 in 18 in 91; and the "icing on the cake" nine goals in 15 games for the Rangers in 1997. In the playoffs, Tikkanen is the best offensive player on a third or fourth line in this series. And he won five Cups, too.
I'd say that George Armstrong is the second-best playoff scorer of anyone in this series. Scored at nearly a point-per-game clip in the playoffs from 62-64. Not bad for a guy who a) played in the Original Six era, when he was facing an HHOF goalie every night; b) played on a very defence-first Leafs team; and c) was never a big regular season scorer.
Maltby won't get us much. We know that. And we're fine with that. There were a couple of more offensively talented LWs that we were looking at, who brought Maltby's speed and defensive play, but we decided to go with Maltby because of his physical jam, work ethic and size. (Some guys in this draft have a big hard-on for forwards more than six feet tall).
Primeau had the monster playoff in 2004, when he put that Philly team on his back. Even Risebrough had a few playoffs with reasonable production. (Even though he was never in a position to be an offensive player in Montreal).
Pit Martin? During his six-year peak, he had 39 points in 55 post-season games. (Missed the playoffs in 69). That's a pace lower than Bobby Schmautz, who scored at about a 70-point pace in the post-season during his six-year peak. (He also missed a playoff year).
Nobody on Montreal's third or fourth line sustained post-season production on a year-to-year basis. I mentioned Bonin earlier; actually, take away the one big playoff, he has 10 points in 39 games.
The edge in third and fourth line scoring, in the playoffs, goes to Halifax. Big-time. If HO wants to cite a bunch of regular season stats, that's really nice. This is the playoffs. In these 1-0 and 2-1 games, when both teams top lines will be facing excellent checking lines (we know that any line centre by Doug Jarvis is going to be extremely difficult to score against), it'll be a third or fourth liner, who manages to pot the big goal, who will be the difference.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
GBC, insofar as your argument revolves around pointing out that George Armstrong raised his level of play during the playoffs, it is effective. In Tikkanen's case, there's a bit more to say, I think.
Armstrong's three year run of postseason performances from 1961 through 1964 is very impressive and was a big part of Toronto's team success during that period. Armstrong placed 3rd, 2nd and 2nd in points (on some very talented Leafs teams) during that span and led the team in goals in 1962. To Armstrong's great credit, although he wasn't one of the dynasty's offensive leaders in the regular season, he was in the playoffs, and should be remembered as such. Nothing to say about Armstrong other than that I agree with GBC that he's probably the best bottom six postseason scorer in this series, in spite of not being the most talented.
Tikkanen is a slightly different case, as Esa had a scoringline spot on an Oilers team that was notoriously weak on the left wing and in fact traded like crazy for LWs in the mid-80's (Craig Simpson and Geoff Courtnall, to name a couple) because Sather didn't think the Oil had the right guy for a scoringline. Looking only at Tikk's raw numbers badly distorts his playoff performances. A few points about Tikkanen:
- Tikkanen had almost no role on the 1985 Cup winning team, suiting up for three playoff games and registering zero points, so although he technically has his name on the Cup five times, only four of those came as a real contributor.
- in 1988, Tikkanen played with Gretzky - Kurri through the regular season and playoffs. While 10-17-27 in 19 games looks impressive, it was only good for 4th in team playoff points and 5th in goals. To be honest, an awful lot of players could have put up those kind of numbers or better on that line.
- in 1990, Tikk played on the 2nd line and was outscored by Edmonton's 1st line left winger, Craig Simpson. Tikk's 1990 playoff line is again an nice looking 13-11-24 and again good for 4th on the team. The fact that Tikk was outscored by Simpson, however, highlites the importance of line placement with the superstars on those Oilers teams. Tikkanen was nothing resembling an offensive leader in Edmonton.
- Tikk actually did lead the Oil in playoff scoring one year: 1991, when Messier was "off" (as in, probably hurt) and they were crushed by the Northstars in the conference finals.
- Tikk did play well on Messier's line in 1997 for the Rangers, though when that team won the Cup (in 1994 - three years and, for Tikkanen, three teams ago), Esa was playing on a checkingline.
Esa Tikkanen is a low-end complimentary player on a 2nd line or a good 2-way 3rd liner, but I don't want to see him made into a playoff hero, because he was not. His offensive outbursts always came playing caddy to an all-time great center. Tikk's almost comical miss of an open net in game 2 of the 1998 Cup Finals was a real blow to the Caps in a game Detroit came back to win. If Tikk converts that chance, Washington probably walks away with a split in Detroit and the whole series is different. He was playing on a scoringline (with Joey Juneau) for Washington that year, as well, and didn't produce much.
Keith Primeau was actually known in Detroit as a bit of a playoff no-show, and didn't really put it all together until the last playoff season of his professional career. Looking at his career as a whole, I don't think we can expect big things from him. The fact that Primeau held out in Detroit and then again in Carolina after being named team captain never impressed me much, either.
In spite of criticism of Primeau and Tikkanen, I think Halifax's 3rd line is good, on the whole, and I think Armstrong is a standout in his role, but Primeau is a rather weak 3rd line center and Tikkanen can't realistically be expected to score a lot on a line without high-end offensive talent.
Armstrong's three year run of postseason performances from 1961 through 1964 is very impressive and was a big part of Toronto's team success during that period. Armstrong placed 3rd, 2nd and 2nd in points (on some very talented Leafs teams) during that span and led the team in goals in 1962. To Armstrong's great credit, although he wasn't one of the dynasty's offensive leaders in the regular season, he was in the playoffs, and should be remembered as such. Nothing to say about Armstrong other than that I agree with GBC that he's probably the best bottom six postseason scorer in this series, in spite of not being the most talented.
Tikkanen is a slightly different case, as Esa had a scoringline spot on an Oilers team that was notoriously weak on the left wing and in fact traded like crazy for LWs in the mid-80's (Craig Simpson and Geoff Courtnall, to name a couple) because Sather didn't think the Oil had the right guy for a scoringline. Looking only at Tikk's raw numbers badly distorts his playoff performances. A few points about Tikkanen:
- Tikkanen had almost no role on the 1985 Cup winning team, suiting up for three playoff games and registering zero points, so although he technically has his name on the Cup five times, only four of those came as a real contributor.
- in 1988, Tikkanen played with Gretzky - Kurri through the regular season and playoffs. While 10-17-27 in 19 games looks impressive, it was only good for 4th in team playoff points and 5th in goals. To be honest, an awful lot of players could have put up those kind of numbers or better on that line.
- in 1990, Tikk played on the 2nd line and was outscored by Edmonton's 1st line left winger, Craig Simpson. Tikk's 1990 playoff line is again an nice looking 13-11-24 and again good for 4th on the team. The fact that Tikk was outscored by Simpson, however, highlites the importance of line placement with the superstars on those Oilers teams. Tikkanen was nothing resembling an offensive leader in Edmonton.
- Tikk actually did lead the Oil in playoff scoring one year: 1991, when Messier was "off" (as in, probably hurt) and they were crushed by the Northstars in the conference finals.
- Tikk did play well on Messier's line in 1997 for the Rangers, though when that team won the Cup (in 1994 - three years and, for Tikkanen, three teams ago), Esa was playing on a checkingline.
Esa Tikkanen is a low-end complimentary player on a 2nd line or a good 2-way 3rd liner, but I don't want to see him made into a playoff hero, because he was not. His offensive outbursts always came playing caddy to an all-time great center. Tikk's almost comical miss of an open net in game 2 of the 1998 Cup Finals was a real blow to the Caps in a game Detroit came back to win. If Tikk converts that chance, Washington probably walks away with a split in Detroit and the whole series is different. He was playing on a scoringline (with Joey Juneau) for Washington that year, as well, and didn't produce much.
Keith Primeau was actually known in Detroit as a bit of a playoff no-show, and didn't really put it all together until the last playoff season of his professional career. Looking at his career as a whole, I don't think we can expect big things from him. The fact that Primeau held out in Detroit and then again in Carolina after being named team captain never impressed me much, either.
In spite of criticism of Primeau and Tikkanen, I think Halifax's 3rd line is good, on the whole, and I think Armstrong is a standout in his role, but Primeau is a rather weak 3rd line center and Tikkanen can't realistically be expected to score a lot on a line without high-end offensive talent.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
I couldn't disagree more.
Tikkanen was a clutch playoff performer, not only with PLENTY of key-moment goals, not only game winners (he must have a dozen in the playoffs) but also momentum goals, important insurance goals to lighten the pressure, and shorthanded break the back goals.
As for 'playing caddy' that is the OPPOSITE of what he was: he played AGAINST the best and to do so was on a scoring line, not being carried offensively, in fact, soft goals to Tikkanen because of who his centre was was not common.
Cite ALL the stats you want. I actually watched each and every playoff series Esa was in, and the guy was a playoff warrior, defensively, offensively and in terms of on-ice leadership. Bloody remarkable watching him in the postseason, often the question was: Where the hell was that over the regular season? He's a role player with the sort of skill, drive and determination to kick it up a notch in the playoffs, and is an elite third liner in an all-time context.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
VanI, the middle part of the quote "...is not a clutch scorer..." that you used in response to my post is a fabrication. The fact that I did not type those words should be clear to all who care to hunt for them in my post. While misunderstandings and misinterpretations are part-and-parcel of having these discussions, simple misquoting is probably not going to get us anywhere.
I said that Tikk is a good 2-way 3rd liner; you say he's elite - we don't actually disagree about much. The point of my post was not to suggest that Tikk is not a fine playoff performer (I hate double negatives), but to point out that he was not an offensive leader of any team that actually won the Cup, in contrast to Armstrong, who was - three times in a row.
I didn't watch every one of Edmonton's playoff games during the 80's. I saw many of them, but I certainly didn't see them all. I'm quite certain I missed most or all of Tikk's playoff performances in St. Louis and Vancouver, as well, so if you've seen his full body of work first-hand, clearly I'm not the expert here. What you say about Tikkanen's playoff goal-scoring seems true enough; I remember him scoring a few big ones for the Oil and can't cite specific softies to refute your argument, though it is always the big ones that we remember (just as I remember his gaffe in Washington). Nevertheless, Tikk was never a playmaker and his assist totals (particularly in 1988) did often come on the cheap, I think.
An elite third liner? I dunno. I guess it depends on how you define "elite". A lot of GMs made some pretty heavy investments in their 3rd lines in this draft. I wouldn't put Tikkanen in the same category as guys like Provost, Tonelli, Armstrong, Brind'amour, Gainey, Keon (he was really in his own category as a "3rd liner") or Savard. I really don't see the logic in taking Tikkanen in the 7th round; I just don't think he was that good, though I'd agree that Tikk belongs on the next tier with names like Duff, Lewis, Aurie, etc. Again, I think our perceptions of Tikkanen aren't actually all that different.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Useless Thread MDCCCLXXXVVIII - The Cancun Capitals Appreciation Thread
- Latest: MetalheadPenguinsFan
-
-
Upcoming events
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 23Staked: $26,012.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 13Staked: $59,839.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 10Staked: $20,975.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
