ATD#8 Jim Robson Round #1: #3 Sherbrooke vs. #6 Seattle

[VanIslander]

The Jim Robson division:

First Round Match-Up



Castors de Sherbrooke

Coach : Jacques Demers
Captain : Maurice Richard
Alternates : Henri Richard, Dave Keon

Dickie Moore - Henri Richard - Maurice Richard
Bill Barber - Gordon Keats - Glenn Anderson
Bob Pulford - Dave Keon - Ron Ellis
Mel Bridgman - Phil Watson - Thomas Steen
Doug Weight

Bill Quackenbush - Elmer Vasko
Sergei Zubov - Clarence Abel
Bucko McDonald - Phil Russell
Gary Bergman

Alex Connell
Vladimir Dzurilla
Bob Froese



vs.



Seattle Thunderbirds

Coaches: Jack Adams, Ken Hitchcock
Captain: Gordie Howe
Alternates: Ed Westfall, Al Siebert

Roy Conacher - Norm Ullman - Gordie Howe
Lawrence Northcott - Marty Barry - Frank Foyston
Mike Mcphee - Steve Kasper - Ed Westfall
Tony Leswick - Ron Sutter - Patrick Flatley

Albert Siebert - Rob Blake
Hod Stuart - Bill White
Jim Schoenfeld - Jim Neilson

Mike Murphy, Brian Engblom

Ken Dryden
Miikka Kiprusoff​

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Castors de Sherbrooke

PP1: Moore - Keats - M.Richard - Zubov - Quackenbush
PP2: Anderson - H.Richard - Steen - Barber - Russell

PK1: Pulford - Keon - Quackenbush - Vasko
PK2: Ellis - Watson - Abel - McDonald

vs.

Seattle Thunderbirds

PP1: Foyston - Ullman - Howe - Stuart - Blake
PP2: Conacher - Barry - Northcott - Siebert - Nielson

PK1: Ron Sutter - Westfall - Shoenfeld - White
PK2: Kasper - McPhee - Siebert - Blake

 

[MXD]

... Let the battle of the RW's begin!

 

[God Bless Canada]

I've liked MXD's team from the start. Best first line in the draft. One of the best third lines in the draft. A good, multi-purpose second line with a blend of skill, toughness and clutch play.

Seattle also has an excellent first line, with the best forward ever (Howe) and two very underrated players. Very reminiscent of HO's first line when he won the championship in ATD #6.

Seattle has two defensive lines, although I think the Sutter line would be overmatched against the Richard line. I'm a big Ron Sutter fan, he was No. 3 on my list of checking centres in the last minor league draft, but that match-up could be trouble.

Neither team has that true ace No. 1 defenceman. Quackenbush is excellent, and I think he's the best blue-liner in this series, but I think he's better off as a top-notch No. 2. Vasko is a perfect partner for Quackenbush. Seattle lacks a true No. 1, but they have four guys (Stuart, Siebert, Blake and White) capable of playing top-pairing minutes.

Seattle has edges in goal and behind the bench. Dryden vs. Connell is close to as big of an edge as you'll find in this draft. Dryden's a top six goalie ever; Connell is near the bottom for No. 1 goalies. Jack Adams belongs in the 11-15 range for coaches. For some reason, I'm not as sold on Demers as others. Good coach, but not a guy who's going to push a team over the top in a tight series. The one thing I would like to see with Adams is more of a players coach, a guy who can mediate with the players. Adams wasn't always the most popular coach. Tough and demanding. Someone like a Pat Quinn or a Bob Johnson would be a good balance with Adams.

I think Sherbrooke has enough to get through this series, but against a team like Halifax or New York or Montreal, the coaching and goaltending could be difference-makers.

 

[VanIslander]

Castors LW Bill Barber is well matched up against Thunderbirds RW Gordie Howe but the Sherbrooke top-3 on the blueline aren't very physical or tough and so the bottom-3 might have to play more minutes to compensate, perhaps to be out there when Mr. Hockey elbows his way to the net.

 

[MXD]

Castors LW Bill Barber is well matched up against Thunderbirds RW Gordie Howe but the Sherbrooke top-3 on the blueline aren't very physical or tough and so the bottom-3 might have to play more minutes to compensate, perhaps to be out there when Mr. Hockey elbows his way to the net.

Hummm...
On Bob Pulford entry on legendsofhockey.com website, he's described as the "personnal nightmare" of Gordie Howe.

Which brings us back to what I was saying to you VanI earlier on : I wouldn't have any problem sending my 1st against any first, but I can use the 2nd or the 3rd according to opponents. It's a safe bet to say that my 3rd will play A LOT against Howe... Besides, I have home advantage, so I might throw my 1st quite often : Adams and Hitchcock will do...well, whatever they want with this

I will elaborate a game plan later... Just wanted to point this out.

 

[nik jr]

leswick will be moved up to the 3rd line for his latest epic clash with rocket richard. he will also give the 3rd line more scoring.
we want leswick--kasper--westfall against MXD's 1st line.

i think our 2nd line is at least comparable with MXD's. northcott, barry and foyston were all clutch players. northcott is a support player, but he was able to beat out busher jackson for 1st AS LW when he played on a scoring line (with lesser offensive players than barry and foyston). foyston was a perennial AS in the PCHA, and averaged a goal per game against the habs of lalonde and vezina in stanley cup play. barry led detroit to back to back cups, and is 1 of the only stars of his time whose scoring didn't drop in the playoffs.

apparently, keats was shut down fairly easily by some rough play from broadbent, so how will he react to howe?

i don't think anyone on sherbrooke can handle howe. connell isn't hasek, and the d-corps isn't very strong.

i think a hard forecheck will be effective against sherbrooke's D. quackenbush and zubov are small and unphysical, abel was a poor skater. ullman was one of the best forecheckers of his time, and howe was terrifying on the boards.

neither team has a strong d-corps, but i think we will have better team D, because of hitchcock, and much better goaltending. we think those, plus howe, are enough for us to win.

 

[pitseleh]

I really like this matchup. Two phenominal first lines going up against two great checking lines. As great as Pulford-Keon-Ellis are, Leswick-Kasper-Westfall will give them a run for their money, at least defensively.

As has been mentioned, Seattle has a huge edge in net. I also give them an edge on defense, though Quackenbush is the best defenseman on either team.

I love Sherbrooke's collection of forwards. I do think the second lines are close (I'm a huge Marty Barry fan) but I give Sherbrooke the edge on the first, third and fourth. Sherbrooke also has a collection of forwards known for clutch play (not that Seattle doesn't, just not to the same extent), which will be an advantage.

 

[MXD]

leswick will be moved up to the 3rd line for his latest epic clash with rocket richard. he will also give the 3rd line more scoring.
we want leswick--kasper--westfall against MXD's 1st line.

i think our 2nd line is at least comparable with MXD's. northcott, barry and foyston were all clutch players. northcott is a support player, but he was able to beat out busher jackson for 1st AS LW when he played on a scoring line (with lesser offensive players than barry and foyston). foyston was a perennial AS in the PCHA, and averaged a goal per game against the habs of lalonde and vezina in stanley cup play. barry led detroit to back to back cups, and is 1 of the only stars of his time whose scoring didn't drop in the playoffs.

apparently, keats was shut down fairly easily by some rough play from broadbent, so how will he react to howe?

i don't think anyone on sherbrooke can handle howe. connell isn't hasek, and the d-corps isn't very strong.

i think a hard forecheck will be effective against sherbrooke's D. quackenbush and zubov are small and unphysical, abel was a poor skater. ullman was one of the best forecheckers of his time, and howe was terrifying on the boards.

neither team has a strong d-corps, but i think we will have better team D, because of hitchcock, and much better goaltending. we think those, plus howe, are enough for us to win.

Good entry overall, and good thing on moving Leswick to 3rd LW. You lose out on size, which is no big deal (though it might be, come to think of it : Leswick is 4 in. smaller than our smallest D, and they played in the same era), but you gain a little on offense.

This said... Quackenbush, small?! 5'11 - 180 was pretty good size for the late '40, early '50. That makes him taller than Fern Flaman, equal to Doug Harvey, MUCH bigger than Leo Boivin, slightly smaller than Jack Stewart (on a lighter note, can you believe Stewart is listed at 5'12 on Wikipedia.... - they might have the same size after all) and similar to Kenny Reardon, yet absolutely nobody would bring either of these guys size. He was extremely disciplined while playing defense, which is a + for a guy that will play in the mid-20 minutes per game... but not exactly small.

And Bob Pulford intro entry on www.legendsofhockey.com is pretty much self-explaining when it comes to whether the guy can or cannot play against Howe...

 

[nik jr]

you are right about quackenbush. i don't know why, but i thought he was 5'9.

 

[Diving Pokecheck*]

I believe this series is going to 7 games.
About Jack Adams, he coached many of our players.

 

[Sturminator]

I think this is the best matchup of the first round. I found the Robson very hard to rate. I picked Montreal to finish first, but after that it was a bit of a jumble. At any rate, I know I had Seattle higher than they finished in the regular season standings and I think I had Sherbrooke where they ended up. It's a tough matchup for both teams in a tough division, because really these teams could have finished 1-2 in the division and nobody would have blinked. My impressions:

- both first lines will score a lot. I don't think Quackenbush and Vasko match up well with the Howe line, and although Sherbrooke's 3rd line is very good and built specifically to handle Gordie Howe, Connell in net is a weakness. Gordie's line will be a real load for Les Castors to handle. One weakness of the line is a lack of playmakers besides Gordie, himself. If Pulford and Vasko can minimize Gordie's time and space, Ullman and Conacher may end up taking a lot of bad shots or trying to win 1-on-1 battles, which is not an ideal gameplan.

- Sherbrooke's 1st line is likely to have its way with Seattle's top defensive units pretty frequently. Rob Blake is not the kind of #1 defenseman you want trying to stop the buzzsaw that is Moore - Richard - Richard. Siebert is a good 2-way #2 defenseman, the checkingline is strong and they're backed by Ken Dryden so the damage may be minimized somewhat, but I think Sherbrooke's #1 unit will outscore Seattle's. By how much they win the head-to-head scoring competition may well determine the outcome of this series.

- neither 1st pairing is high-end. Quackenbush is a good offensive defenseman and Vasko moves the puck up ice well, though his tendency to dump the puck in rather than carrying it across the opposing blueline doesn't fit perfectly with the composition of Sherbrooke's top line, which is not a dump-and-chase unit, by any means. Blake has all the physical talent in the world, but he's probably the most mistake-prone #1 in the draft. Overall, Quackenbush is the better player, in my opinion. Strangely, both Blake and Quackenbush might be better off on defense if they were switched. Quack's lack of physicality is going to be costly against Gordie & Co. while Blake's physicality is largely wasted against Richard, Richard and Associates, while his tendency to get himself out of position is particularly glaring against that line.

- Siebert is better than Vasko, in my opinion. Overall, I think the top pairings are pretty close to equal. Both will seriously have their hands full.

- Seattle has a very clear advantage when comparing second pairings. Stuart-White is one of the top 2nd pairings in the league, while Zubov-Abel doesn't impress me. Zubie is a very skilled player and an excellent, underrated puckmover on the 2nd pairing. Abel covers Sergei's lack of physicality, ok, but I really think Taffy is more of a 3rd pairing guy. I think Seattle's 2nd line ultimately scores more than Sherbrooke's not necessarily because it's better, but because it's facing considerably weaker defensemen.

- in terms of tertiary scoring, Dave Keon on the 3rd line should be able to counterattack effectively on occasion against Gordie's line. I don't see a whole lot of bottom-line scoring in the series beyond Keon (both teams 3rd and 4th lines are basically checking units), but Dave, by himself, is easily the single best 3rd liner in the draft and constitutes a legitimate counterattack threat against a Howe line that may not be extremely worried about their own end of the ice. Watson and Steen on Sherbrooke's 4th will chip in a few points, as well.

- in the end, looked at on paper, I think Sherbrooke wins narrowly and Dave Keon is the hero of the series for his excellent 2-way play. The X factor that may swing things the other way, in my opinion, is Jack Adams behind the bench in Seattle. I say Sherbrooke in seven grueling games.

 

[nik jr]

I think this is the best matchup of the first round. I found the Robson very hard to rate. I picked Montreal to finish first, but after that it was a bit of a jumble. At any rate, I know I had Seattle higher than they finished in the regular season standings and I think I had Sherbrooke where they ended up. It's a tough matchup for both teams in a tough division, because really these teams could have finished 1-2 in the division and nobody would have blinked. My impressions:

- both first lines will score a lot. I don't think Quackenbush and Vasko match up well with the Howe line, and although Sherbrooke's 3rd line is very good and built specifically to handle Gordie Howe, Connell in net is a weakness. Gordie's line will be a real load for Les Castors to handle. One weakness of the line is a lack of playmakers besides Gordie, himself. If Pulford and Vasko can minimize Gordie's time and space, Ullman and Conacher may end up taking a lot of bad shots or trying to win 1-on-1 battles, which is not an ideal gameplan.

ullman has the same career goals to assist ratio as sid abel. ullman was a very good playmaker. the very reason our 1st line is so dangerous (other than howe), is that ullman and conacher are both good goal scorers.
howe boosted everyone's assist totals, but with toronto, ullman still posted 2 consecutive 50 assist seasons and 3 40 assist seasons. he was on pace for 6 consecutive 40+ assist seasons with toronto. there is absolutely no reason to think anyone will be taking a lot of bad shots.
and stopping howe? dream on.

- Sherbrooke's 1st line is likely to have its way with Seattle's top defensive units pretty frequently. Rob Blake is not the kind of #1 defenseman you want trying to stop the buzzsaw that is Moore - Richard - Richard. Siebert is a good 2-way #2 defenseman, the checkingline is strong and they're backed by Ken Dryden so the damage may be minimized somewhat, but I think Sherbrooke's #1 unit will outscore Seattle's. By how much they win the head-to-head scoring competition may well determine the outcome of this series.

we don't think of blake as the #1; our top 4 will get roughly equal TOI.
we will go with stuart and white against MXD's 1st line.


our 1st line will outscore sherbrooke's for several reasons.

1: gordie howe is at worst the 3rd best offensive player in history. he won 6 art rosses against goalies a lot better than connell and D a lot better than sherbrooke's. howe will be on the ice more than anyone but dryden and connell.

2: sherbrooke will not be able to handle our 1st line's forecheck and cycling. sherbrooke's D will be dominated by howe and ullman. vasko and his blackhawks didn't handle ullman's forecheck well:

"Ullman employed his skating speed as an effective weapon. "He was the greatest forechecker in hockey," noted New York Rangers coach Emile Francis. That fierce forechecking helped him produce a Detroit playoff record two goals in five seconds in an April 11, 1965 game with Chicago. Ullman was Chicago's personal nightmare in post-season play. He collected two hat-tricks and 13 points versus the Blackhawks in the 1964 semifinals and had a pair of five-point games against them in Stanley Cup play - on April 7, 1963 and again on April 7, 1964."

i will point out again that from '63 to '65, ullman scored more in the playoffs than anyone in the NHL.

3: howe will dominate the slot and none of sherbrooke's players can stop him. if the D collapse around him, howe has the elite vision to find the open man. and he will find the rebounds.

4: our team D and d-men will be better than sherbrooke's. hitchcock's teams play strong team D. he was able to turn offensive players like modano, zubov and primeau to great two way players.
our D will have a much easier time controlling the front of the net than sherbrooke's. our depth on D is better and not even our 3rd pair is a liability.

5: dryden is an elite goalie, especially in the playoffs. connell is not close to dryden's level. dryden has stopped greater offenses than sherbrooke's.

6. in addition to our advantage on D and our large advantage in net, we think our 3rd line will be effective against sherbrooke's 1st line. tony leswick was such a good agitator and defensive forward, that detroit traded gaye stewart, one of the NHL's better scoring LW's and a former goal leader, to NYR to get him.
leswick's battles with maurice richard were famous. as everyone knows, maurice richard was a hothead, and leswick was an expert at drawing penalties from him.
kasper was one of the best defensive forwards of the 80s, famous for shadowing gretzky. he's not keon, but he's very good defensively.
westfall is one of the all time great defensive forwards, so we think overall, our 3rd line is better defensively, though probably not as good offensively.

 

[VanIslander]

I believe this series is going to 7 games.

Yeah. of all the series this one I keep oscillating about, with no clear sense of the outcome. I'll take a closer, longer look tomorrow.

Maybe Game 7 OT will decide it.

 

[MXD]

Okay... That's the point of the thread where I'll to get vocal.

First... While in a sense I expected to play against you nik jr, becase I felt your team might be underappreciated (or our division is extra-clustered....)... I had you ranked 2nd in the division -- that is, when I opted for the Canadiens at last minute. I said that your offense will be really rebound oriented, and I just cannot see how it would be otherwise.

Second... I'd like to remind you (and everyone as well) that Sherbrooke has home ice advantage -- which means that I'll ultimately decide who faces who in the matchups, if it gets to a 7th game. It WILL get to a seventh game. So better say outright that I'll decide who will face who in a sudden death game.

In this view, my 3rd will face your first, with a few shifts for my 1st here and there. Look toward having my 1st against your 2nd QUITE often -- I said I liked the outlook of a 2nd line (it is indeed well constructed), but there's absolutely no way Baldy Northcutt will be able to keep up with Rocket. As well throw in Dickie Moore with Frank Foyston as well. And Pocket with Marty Barry when we're at it : Pocket could deliver offensively, but is actually the support player on this line -- as if Moore and Pocket need any support --, but don't expect Barry to go anywhere in this case. Barry will probably be limping after 1 period. Not only the Pocket was kinda dirty on the side, but he was also much better than his counterparts (or equivalents) in the art of not getting caught. Expect Rob Blake... or every of your D-Men to be in pain... or simply dizzy by whatever will come out of Moore - Pock- Rock. (Is is a new musical style...? The Puck-Rock... with my line, you even get more of that!)

There are comments about my D everywhere... It's absolutely NOT eye-popping, nor flashy. But there's a reason why I built my team like I did : EVERYONE BACKCHECKS amongst my forwards. And everyone can skate as well. There just won't be lots of odd-man rushes against my team, unless someone sends a Orr-Harvey-Kharlamov-CycloneTaylor-Guy Lafleur... But this line will never exist, so we can safely forget about it.

Going back to D.... There isn't a weak defensive player on my squad. Zubov were raising eyebrows when he started (but hey, which D didn't when he started his career in the last 20 years?) about his defensive game, but he can now be considered an good defensive D-Men, considering his mobility. Ken Hitchcock might have made him better, but it's not as if he hadn't anything to start with. He just needed some coaching, some maturing, and some (more) Malboros. Zubie is my pick for the Norris this year (the 2007 one, not the ATD-one), and if he continues this way, it will be a steal if he doesn't earn it. As for Howe, he'll look like a midget, and FALL DOWN whenever hit by Abel, simple as that. Howe never had to concede size like he does to Abel. (Projecting Abel today gives us something like 6'6, 260...) Granted, Abel is slow. But he's especially there to counter Zubie's relative weakness with bigger forwards, and do crease clearing. You don't have to skate very fast for this...

As for Quackenbush... I've never read anywhere that the guy was soft. It is actually possible that a player just doesn't need to be physical to play defense, and that's the case with Quackenbush. Nobody is gonna push Vasko around as well. Again, I'd like to remind you -- and everyone -- that there's a point in drafting good 2-way forwards : those guys help your defense in the end. (and coach Demers knows a lot about this). While Ullman was efficient defensively, looking over his shoulder for Keon-to-Pulford is something somebody should be worried about in the offensive zone, whether it's even strenght or on the PK, and... mind you, especially on a 7th game of any given playoff. Don't expect Ullman to win many faceoffs against Keon and Pocket either -- the game might be A LOT more in your zone than in mine.

My fourth will obviously see some action, and I hope for your team that you're gonna send ... well, I don't know what you'll send, but my two wingers (the feisty Bridgman and the versatile Steen) will have plenty of feeds by Phil Watson, who's probably the most unheralded C who led his two wingers to 3 goalscoring titles (and they're weren't exactly Howe, Richard or Bossy --- this said, nothing against Bryan Hextall and Lynn Patrick, but it's not like Watson leeched the two most talented goalscorers of all-time for assists.) If it's 4th against 4th, you're in trouble, and this line could also cause troubles to many other ones. I hope this draft is the last one where we see Phil Watson on a 4th line.

I really hoped you wouldn't bring the point of stats in the playoffs, playoffs success... I mean... that's for you, but I wouldn't use this argument against a team who bolsters 7 Connie Smythes, Glenn Anderson and Sergei Zubov, whose playoffs production is absolutely insane considering era.

As for Keats being shut down by Broadbent... Well... I don't see any Broadbent in your lineup amongst the lines that will be likely to play against my 2nd line in the last game... If you want to cover Keats with Howe.... Fine. Who'll cover Barber? I'd cover a PPG guy in the playoffs if I were you instead, especially considering he's playing with the "brainiest pivot of all-time", according to Lester Patrick. (he obivously lacked some part of hockey history, but he saw really good C's in his time -- his buddy Cyclone, Newsy, Dundee (which started to get some recognition in this draft) amongst others. And HE COULDN'T EVEN PASS FORWARD. Covering Keats with Howe and Barber with... Ullman (which makes sense as he's closer)? Glenn Anderson thanks your for the lack of coverage.

Coming back to the domination of the slot... Bucko McDonald - Phil Russell is the toughest defense pair of this matchup by about a head, a neck, and a torso. Might even include the abdomen as well. Don't think those guys are gonna have any problem whatsoever.

Connell isn't going against Dryden. Connell is going against the Seattle T-Birds, and there's a difference there. For a goaltender to come out of retirement, put the pads, and win a Cup, one has to be darn talented. The discrepancy between those two isn't as big as everyones makes it to be... And Dryden is far from having the Big Three around him this time. (this isn't a shot at your D, but it's indeed not the Big-3 or something close to this), and the problem with the teams opposing Dryden (especially for Phil Esposito) was that it was so damn hard to get any rebound from Dryden. Which brings us back to Rob Blake's dizzyness, to general body soreness, and everything ending by "ess" while we're at it. Oh... And if Connell is on a call, there ain't many backups I'd rather have than the pudgy slovak fridge repairman as a backup.

Last word is about coach Demers. My team is mostly about emotion and guts -- why would I bring a tactician to players who wouldn't listen to a ****ing word anyways? I need some emotive guy, someone to motivate them -- I have enough intelligent guys in my roster to take care of business (before anybody says something about Demers condition : Bob Froese will accompany him on the bench to take care of whatever is written/must be read) of directing their teammates. (Keon's orders to Pulford are "Forecheck and Backcheck", but it's not like they don't know each other anyways, and Ellis orders are "Do what we don't", but again, they're knowing each other by now, and they did before anyways). Again, I have guys who aren't exactly known for being receptive to an authoritarian style (Henri Richard, hello!), so going for a motivator to lit them up even more was much better than going for a tactician who would have dragged them down.

Well... that was my messy comments. Happy Halloween, and good luck everyone.

Ohh.... Bob Pulford is Gordie Howe's headache.
Gotta get sober for my future instructions....

 

[MXD]

I forgot : ladies in Sherbrooke are sexier than in Montreal.

 

[nik jr]

Okay... That's the point of the thread where I'll to get vocal.

First... While in a sense I expected to play against you nik jr, becase I felt your team might be underappreciated (or our division is extra-clustered....)... I had you ranked 2nd in the division -- that is, when I opted for the Canadiens at last minute. I said that your offense will be really rebound oriented, and I just cannot see how it would be otherwise.

Second... I'd like to remind you (and everyone as well) that Sherbrooke has home ice advantage -- which means that I'll ultimately decide who faces who in the matchups, if it gets to a 7th game. It WILL get to a seventh game. So better say outright that I'll decide who will face who in a sudden death game.

In this view, my 3rd will face your first, with a few shifts for my 1st here and there. Look toward having my 1st against your 2nd QUITE often -- I said I liked the outlook of a 2nd line (it is indeed well constructed), but there's absolutely no way Baldy Northcutt will be able to keep up with Rocket. As well throw in Dickie Moore with Frank Foyston as well. And Pocket with Marty Barry when we're at it : Pocket could deliver offensively, but is actually the support player on this line -- as if Moore and Pocket need any support --, but don't expect Barry to go anywhere in this case. Barry will probably be limping after 1 period. Not only the Pocket was kinda dirty on the side, but he was also much better than his counterparts (or equivalents) in the art of not getting caught. Expect Rob Blake... or every of your D-Men to be in pain... or simply dizzy by whatever will come out of Moore - Pock- Rock. (Is is a new musical style...? The Puck-Rock... with my line, you even get more of that!)

i don't think this is necessarily a 7 game series. i don't think connell or any of your D can stop our 1st line.

on the road, we will get stuart and white out with our 2nd line as much as possible.
on the road, we may put leswick on the 2nd occasionally to face richard. leswick was good enough offensively to finish in the top 10 in goals a couple of times and make 2nd AS LW. not that northcott can't do his job. northcott was a very good defensive forward, one of the better of the 30s. his defensive awareness was such that he could also play D.

maybe henri richard was great at getting away with dirty play, but in this series he will learn from the master, mr. hockey.

we are not worried about barry. he played in the 30s, shore and nels stewart's era which was dirtier than richard's, and was still consistently in the top 10 in scoring and was a great playoff performer.
foyston may not be a great defensive player, but he played rover, so he should know what to do defensively.

even with your 1st line against our 2nd, dryden is still in net, our team D should be better and our d-men are more solid.

There are comments about my D everywhere... It's absolutely NOT eye-popping, nor flashy. But there's a reason why I built my team like I did : EVERYONE BACKCHECKS amongst my forwards. And everyone can skate as well. There just won't be lots of odd-man rushes against my team, unless someone sends a Orr-Harvey-Kharlamov-CycloneTaylor-Guy Lafleur... But this line will never exist, so we can safely forget about it.

this is also true of our team. hitchcock, who will be a sort of defensive coordinator, gets strong team D out of his teams, and adams did not ignore D.

Going back to D.... There isn't a weak defensive player on my squad. Zubov were raising eyebrows when he started (but hey, which D didn't when he started his career in the last 20 years?) about his defensive game, but he can now be considered an good defensive D-Men, considering his mobility. Ken Hitchcock might have made him better, but it's not as if he hadn't anything to start with. He just needed some coaching, some maturing, and some (more) Malboros. Zubie is my pick for the Norris this year (the 2007 one, not the ATD-one), and if he continues this way, it will be a steal if he doesn't earn it. As for Howe, he'll look like a midget, and FALL DOWN whenever hit by Abel, simple as that. Howe never had to concede size like he does to Abel. (Projecting Abel today gives us something like 6'6, 260...) Granted, Abel is slow. But he's especially there to counter Zubie's relative weakness with bigger forwards, and do crease clearing. You don't have to skate very fast for this...

howe will have no trouble with any of your d-men. he dominated offensively like no one else until gretzky. against d-men much better than zubov and quackenbush, and d-men bigger and better than abel.
he won 6 art rosses by scoring on goalies much better than connell, like plante, hall, bower, etc.

in our opinion, that, along with dryden, is why we should win.

As for Quackenbush... I've never read anywhere that the guy was soft. It is actually possible that a player just doesn't need to be physical to play defense, and that's the case with Quackenbush. Nobody is gonna push Vasko around as well. Again, I'd like to remind you -- and everyone -- that there's a point in drafting good 2-way forwards : those guys help your defense in the end. (and coach Demers knows a lot about this). While Ullman was efficient defensively, looking over his shoulder for Keon-to-Pulford is something somebody should be worried about in the offensive zone, whether it's even strength or on the PK, and... mind you, especially on a 7th game of any given playoff. Don't expect Ullman to win many faceoffs against Keon and Pocket either -- the game might be A LOT more in your zone than in mine.

howe will push everyone around.
as i noted above, ullman's forechecking was very effective against vasko and the blackhawks. and this was with the great glenn hall in net, not connell. i can't imagine our forecheck won't be even more effective.
ullman was very good on draws, but howe also frequently took faceoffs. howe might accidentally elbow henri or keon in the face on the draw.

My fourth will obviously see some action, and I hope for your team that you're gonna send ... well, I don't know what you'll send, but my two wingers (the feisty Bridgman and the versatile Steen) will have plenty of feeds by Phil Watson, who's probably the most unheralded C who led his two wingers to 3 goalscoring titles (and they're weren't exactly Howe, Richard or Bossy --- this said, nothing against Bryan Hextall and Lynn Patrick, but it's not like Watson leeched the two most talented goalscorers of all-time for assists.) If it's 4th against 4th, you're in trouble, and this line could also cause troubles to many other ones. I hope this draft is the last one where we see Phil Watson on a 4th line.

our 4th line will see little TOI, but they will not struggle defensively against bridgman--watson--steen.

I really hoped you wouldn't bring the point of stats in the playoffs, playoffs success... I mean... that's for you, but I wouldn't use this argument against a team who bolsters 7 Connie Smythes, Glenn Anderson and Sergei Zubov, whose playoffs production is absolutely insane considering era.

both teams have great playoff performers. i don't think this is a problem for us.
most important for us is that dryden is one of the greatest playoff goalies in history.

As for Keats being shut down by Broadbent... Well... I don't see any Broadbent in your lineup amongst the lines that will be likely to play against my 2nd line in the last game... If you want to cover Keats with Howe.... Fine. Who'll cover Barber? I'd cover a PPG guy in the playoffs if I were you instead, especially considering he's playing with the "brainiest pivot of all-time", according to Lester Patrick. (he obviously lacked some part of hockey history, but he saw really good C's in his time -- his buddy Cyclone, Newsy, Dundee (which started to get some recognition in this draft) amongst others. And HE COULDN'T EVEN PASS FORWARD. Covering Keats with Howe and Barber with... Ullman (which makes sense as he's closer)? Glenn Anderson thanks your for the lack of coverage.

we won't cover keats with howe. the book is out on how to shut down keats.
his playoff stats don't look very impressive compared to his regular season stats. in his stanley cup series, he scored 0 points.

anderson is not someone who is going to take control offensively by himself. he was typically 4th or 5th in playoff scoring on his own team. of course, he scored a ton of points in the playoffs, but he's not playing with gretzky and coffey and messier and kurri here. after gretzky was traded, anderson's numbers declined quite a bit. he won't score for sherbrooke as he did for edmonton.

Coming back to the domination of the slot... Bucko McDonald - Phil Russell is the toughest defense pair of this matchup by about a head, a neck, and a torso. Might even include the abdomen as well. Don't think those guys are gonna have any problem whatsoever.

we absolutely welcome your third pair matched up against our 1st line. or your 1st or 2nd pair. i can't see any of your pairs stopping our 1st line, especially without an elite goalie.

Connell isn't going against Dryden. Connell is going against the Seattle T-Birds, and there's a difference there.

connell against howe, ullman, conacher, barry and foyston is almost as big of a mismatch as your D corps against our 1st line.
these players led their leagues in goals a combined 9 times (twice in the PCHA for foyston). conacher finished 2nd in goals 4 times, 3 times barry was top 3.

For a goaltender to come out of retirement, put the pads, and win a Cup, one has to be darn talented.

it's interesting to note that in the year connell came out of retirement and won the cup with the '35 maroons, one of our players, baldy northcott, was given the (retro) smythe, as he led the playoffs in both goals and points, and had several GWG.

The discrepancy between those two isn't as big as everyones makes it to be... And Dryden is far from having the Big Three around him this time. (this isn't a shot at your D, but it's indeed not the Big-3 or something close to this), and the problem with the teams opposing Dryden (especially for Phil Esposito) was that it was so damn hard to get any rebound from Dryden. Which brings us back to Rob Blake's dizzyness, to general body soreness, and everything ending by "ess" while we're at it.

dryden was a conn smythe winner and hart runner-up without the big 3. in '71, montreal had the 6th best D out of 14 teams, hardly terrifying.
'71 habs were underdogs both to the 1st place bruins, heavy favorites who had the best offense the NHL had ever seen, and to 3rd place chicago, who had the 3rd best offense in the NHL.
dryden was the difference in both series.

for all the greatness of the big 3, (plus gainey, jarvis, lafleur, shutt, engblom and a young rod langway) they had very little success without dryden. the habs lost in the 1st round in '74 without dryden. (arguably) the greatest dynasty ended as soon as he retired. that says A LOT about dryden.

 

[MXD]

Pretty good attempt at making my 1st line looks like untalented. Fair enough, I don't have the time to reply to any of this stuff anymore. I win this one in 6 or 7 -- likely 7.

 

[arrbez]

you guys should probably ro-sham-bo for this one (as is our custom)

 

[nik jr]

Pretty good attempt at making my 1st line looks like untalented. Fair enough, I don't have the time to reply to any of this stuff anymore. I win this one in 6 or 7 -- likely 7.

i've never said your 1st line is anything but great.

even against stuart, white, our 3rd line; with dryden playing great; even if westfall is smothering moore, and leswick is all over rocket and goading him into some stupid penalties, your 1st line will still score.
we can only limit their scoring. rocket is maybe the best clutch player in history, so it's certainly a tall order.



sherbrooke has better offense, we have better D. although both teams have great 3rd lines, both D corps are overmatched by the opposing forwards, and will get scoring chances. the difference in this series is which goalie will make the big saves.

dryden has won several series stopping all time great scorers like orr, esposito, hull and mikita.

while dryden doesn't have the big 3 in front of him (although they, and the rest of the habs, needed him more than he needed them, as i noted previously), what you said earlier about dryden lacking the big 3 is true of connell.

connell played the vast majority of his career on great defensive teams.
his ottawa teammates included d-men clancy, buck boucher and lionel hitchman, plus great 2 way forwards like nighbor, broadbent, hooley smith and frank finnigan.

his maroons teammates included d-men cy wentworth and lionel conacher, plus great 2 way forwards like hooley smith and baldy northcott.

how will connell fare against howe, et al, without stout D in front of him?

 

[MXD]

i've never said your 1st line is anything but great.

even against stuart, white, our 3rd line; with dryden playing great; even if westfall is smothering moore, and leswick is all over rocket and goading him into some stupid penalties, your 1st line will still score.
we can only limit their scoring. rocket is maybe the best clutch player in history, so it's certainly a tall order.



sherbrooke has better offense, we have better D. although both teams have great 3rd lines, both D corps are overmatched by the opposing forwards, and will get scoring chances. the difference in this series is which goalie will make the big saves.

dryden has won several series stopping all time great scorers like orr, esposito, hull and mikita.

while dryden doesn't have the big 3 in front of him (although they, and the rest of the habs, needed him more than he needed them, as i noted previously), what you said earlier about dryden lacking the big 3 is true of connell.

connell played the vast majority of his career on great defensive teams.
his ottawa teammates included d-men clancy, buck boucher and lionel hitchman, plus great 2 way forwards like nighbor, broadbent, hooley smith and frank finnigan.

his maroons teammates included d-men cy wentworth and lionel conacher, plus great 2 way forwards like hooley smith and baldy northcott.

how will connell fare against howe, et al, without stout D in front of him?

Well... I see that my D is really underrated on the "defensive" side of the game. It's absolutely not explosive on the offensive side of game, and no one will argue about this. But you make Quackenbush look like the 1st coming of Sandis Ozolinch, which is obviously not the case. Simply put, considering what was asked from the D-Mens in those days, it's extremely unlikely that Quackenbush wouldn't be able to stand forecheck, no matter who was forechecking, and it's also extremely unlikely that he would have kept a job if he wouldn't be able to do with flying elbows. Aggressive forecheking against Zubov could spell trouble if your team can reach him, but Zubie has the mobility to avoid it, and it's not like he cannot complete passes to the forwards (which, I'll say it again, are known as great backcheckers, hence Zubie wouldn't have to rely on the high-risk passes in order to avoid forecheck, which isn't to say he wouldn't try and complete some of them at some point of the round). The third line sport Phil Russell, who's bigger than ALL of your forwards anyways, and has been noted as an extremely mobile D-Men. Taffy Abel won two cups with the Rangers being paired with an equally slow player, so I'm wondering if his slowness isn't being a little overstated. While I admit that Ching Johnson is a better player than Abel (not saying much here), the pairing allowed only 3 (!!!) shots in a game, because their goalie couldn't allow to receive more shots : it was actually Lester Patrick. Simply put : if both guys were that slow, they wouldn't have been able to record this feat.

Also, I think you're underrating Bucko a bit when it comes to my D-Mens. First, his PIM's total are ridiculously low for a D-Men who was this physical - noted as being one of the most, if not the most - violent hitting D-Men of his era, which hints at him being a much better D-Men than everyone gives him the credit for - which means he could something else than hit. I'll say it again : Russell - McDonald is an absolute slugfest waiting to happen.

The same thing could be said about my forward corps : Pocket and Moore were definitely good 2-way players, as were Bill Barber and Glenn Anderson. Moreover, my top-6 will be an excellent group to keep puck control in your zone. Richard and Keats weren't known as good two-way players (with a small asterisk to Rocket - probably much better than he was considered, but he had to finish his job in the attacking before backchecking). I've never read anything about Keats defensive play, the only thing I know which relates to his defensive play is that he was aggressive and intelligent.

My third line might be the best when it comes to playoff defensive play (with an asterisk to EB's line, which I think is a bit better on the defensive side of the game, but don't have the same playoffs acclaim). The worst is... My third line could even be better than it is right now.

And my fourth line sports a player who won the R.Connie Smythe by shutting down the Kraut Line while playing with Dennis Hextall and Lynn Patrick, not exactly the best 2-way players (this is impressive, considering the scoring threat of the Krauts were, along with Schmidt, RW Bobby Bauer. Simply put, Watson probably shut down two players at the same time on the ice considering who was his LW, and that Dumart wasn't much of a threat in the playoffs anyways) . While your 1st brings more offense than the Kraut (even though I don't think it brings the same 2-way play, that's not the point here, however), my 4th won't play them really often. They could be facing the 2nd line a lot, however. So you have Phil Watson playing with a guy better than Lynn Patrick defensively (MUCH better, in fact...) in Mel Bridgeman, and Thomas Steen, far from a shlock in this department. He might not be the toughest 4th liner, but being labelled tough by John Ferguson gives weight to the fact that he was, indeed, tough.

So...Are you still convinced my team can't play defense? My won't allow many shots for sure : even if Connell didn't win the R.Connie Award in 1935 (well, they can award it to only one guy, right?), he already earned his a bit before, so it's not like les Castors had a goalie who would ride solely on his players, nor one who would choke come playoffs time.

EDIT : If Watson would have been playing with Dennis Hextall, he would have still been playing in his late 60ies! I obviously meant Bryan Hextall.

 

[MXD]

Another thing worth nothing : I win the battle of the subs, and it's not even close. Vlad Dzurilla might be the best one-playoff-game subs of the whole bunch of subs in this draft, and Doug Weight should really not be a backup in this draft. Maybe not a prime-time 2nd liner, but could get the job done in a pinch ; could also be featured on a 2-way 3rd or an offensive 4th. The best playmaker not in a Top-6, IMO. Gary Bergman could be a regular as well, and could arguably be considered the 2nd best Canada D-Men in the Summit Series. There will probably be injuries and suspensions in this round, and I notice you have only 4 C's in your lineup, while I have 7 (the other ones being Steen and Bridgeman, who played wing for a part of their career, hence their spot at wing). Could spell trouble. Phil Watson played all forward positions during his career, so this adds to the versatility of my squad, should something happens.

Aslo expect to see Watson centering the 2nd line when we have a short lead towards the end of the game.

 

[nik jr]

Well... I see that my D is really underrated on the "defensive" side of the game. It's absolutely not explosive on the offensive side of game, and no one will argue about this. But you make Quackenbush look like the 1st coming of Sandis Ozolinch, which is obviously not the case. Simply put, considering what was asked from the D-Mens in those days, it's extremely unlikely that Quackenbush wouldn't be able to stand forecheck, no matter who was forechecking, and it's also extremely unlikely that he would have kept a job if he wouldn't be able to do with flying elbows. Aggressive forechecking against Zubov could spell trouble if your team can reach him, but Zubie has the mobility to avoid it, and it's not like he cannot complete passes to the forwards (which, I'll say it again, are known as great backcheckers, hence Zubie wouldn't have to rely on the high-risk passes in order to avoid forecheck, which isn't to say he wouldn't try and complete some of them at some point of the round). The third line sport Phil Russell, who's bigger than ALL of your forwards anyways, and has been noted as an extremely mobile D-Men. Taffy Abel won two cups with the Rangers being paired with an equally slow player, so I'm wondering if his slowness isn't being a little overstated. While I admit that Ching Johnson is a better player than Abel (not saying much here), the pairing allowed only 3 (!!!) shots in a game, because their goalie couldn't allow to receive more shots : it was actually Lester Patrick. Simply put : if both guys were that slow, they wouldn't have been able to record this feat.

it's not that your d-men are bad, it's that they are outclassed and they do not have an elite goalie to bail them out. abel, russell and mcdonald have good size and strength, but that doesn't make them great players.
our d-men are not that much better than yours, although we compensate somewhat by playing a more defensive style, but we have an elite goalie who has stolen several series even from great teams.

it's not that your d-men are weak against a normal NHL forecheck, it's that our top line has 2 great forecheckers, 1 of whom is also 1 of the 2 or 3 best offensive players in history.
quackenbush isn't an ozolinsh, but howe vs quackenbush is basically the same kind of mismatch as ozolinsh vs roenick (for example). of course they won't score on every other shift, but the matchup favors us and they will score.
if players like connell, abel, zubov, quackenbush, vasko, russell and mcdonald could contain howe, he never would have won a single art ross, let alone 6. a player as great as howe cannot be stopped with any regularity.

ullman was considered the best, or 1 of the best, forecheckers of his time. he terrorized chicago even though they had glenn hall in net.
howe did not have the speed of ullman, but his combination of anticipation, hockey sense, strength and skill has never been matched.

while zubov has been great after the lockout, for much of his career, he was really not far above average defensively. while zubov is an excellent passer and the threat of a counterattack is always there, he is also not very good against power forwards, especially early in his career.
this is a great matchup for us, as howe is the greatest power forward of all time.

an additional factor here is dryden.
we have the confidence to forecheck knowing dryden is there to make the big save.

Also, I think you're underrating Bucko a bit when it comes to my D-Mens. First, his PIM's total are ridiculously low for a D-Men who was this physical - noted as being one of the most, if not the most - violent hitting D-Men of his era, which hints at him being a much better D-Men than everyone gives him the credit for - which means he could something else than hit. I'll say it again : Russell - McDonald is an absolute slugfest waiting to happen.

i don't think i'm underrating mcdonald. he was a very good pick, better than several d-men taken before him. my point is that neither he, nor any other of your d-men, can handle howe, who will be on the ice for most of the non-PK game.

The same thing could be said about my forward corps : Pocket and Moore were definitely good 2-way players, as were Bill Barber and Glenn Anderson. Moreover, my top-6 will be an excellent group to keep puck control in your zone. Richard and Keats weren't known as good two-way players (with a small asterisk to Rocket - probably much better than he was considered, but he had to finish his job in the attacking before backchecking). I've never read anything about Keats defensive play, the only thing I know which relates to his defensive play is that he was aggressive and intelligent.

most of your forwards are good 2 way players, and i don't think any are liabilities defensively, but the primary responsibility of keeping the puck out of the net rests on below average d-men and goaltending. even with great forwards, if your D and goalie aren't up to the task, you are in trouble.

we will certainly not have an easy time keeping your forwards at bay. while we do have 1 of the best goalies in history, our D corps is anything but spectacular. in our favor, our team will play defense first and our forwards are generally good 2 way players as well.

My third line might be the best when it comes to playoff defensive play (with an asterisk to EB's line, which I think is a bit better on the defensive side of the game, but don't have the same playoffs acclaim). The worst is... My third line could even be better than it is right now.

your 3rd line is definitely 1 of the very best. i think ours is as good defensively, but cannot match the scoring of yours.
although our top line will score some regardless of who covers them, we want to avoid that matchup as much as possible.
howe will be playing about 1/2 of each game, so unless you play keon's line for 28 minutes, howe will be free of them for several shifts, even on the road.

And my fourth line sports a player who won the R.Connie Smythe by shutting down the Kraut Line while playing with Dennis Hextall and Lynn Patrick, not exactly the best 2-way players (this is impressive, considering the scoring threat of the Krauts were, along with Schmidt, RW Bobby Bauer. Simply put, Watson probably shut down two players at the same time on the ice considering who was his LW, and that Dumart wasn't much of a threat in the playoffs anyways) . While your 1st brings more offense than the Kraut (even though I don't think it brings the same 2-way play, that's not the point here, however), my 4th won't play them really often. They could be facing the 2nd line a lot, however. So you have Phil Watson playing with a guy better than Lynn Patrick defensively (MUCH better, in fact...) in Mel Bridgeman, and Thomas Steen, far from a shlock in this department. He might not be the toughest 4th liner, but being labelled tough by John Ferguson gives weight to the fact that he was, indeed, tough.

So...Are you still convinced my team can't play defense? My won't allow many shots for sure : even if Connell didn't win the R.Connie Award in 1935 (well, they can award it to only one guy, right?), he already earned his a bit before, so it's not like les Castors had a goalie who would ride solely on his players, nor one who would choke come playoffs time.

your 4th line is better than ours (though ours will be seeing very little TOI).
barry and foyston were big game players with great playoff records, and during the early days when violence was not uncommon, so while they might be limited somewhat, they won't be shut down.


howie morenz
regular season: 467 in 550 ~.85
playoffs: 15 in 35 games ~.43

bill cook
regular season: 366 in 475 games ~.77
playoffs: 24 in 46 games ~.52

nels stewart
regular season: 515 in 652 games ~.79
playoffs: 19 in 46 games ~.41

hooley smith
regular season: 415 in 716 games ~.58
playoffs: 20 in 52 games ~.38

busher jackson
regular season: 475 in 636 games ~.75
playoffs: 30 in 71 games ~.42

marty barry
regular season: 387 in 508 games ~.76
playoffs: 33 in 43 games ~.74


playoffs in the 30s were generally very low scoring, but barry was able to score at the same rate during the tight-checking playoffs, which most other great scorers could not do.


frank foyston was also a great clutch player. over his career, he averaged a goal per game in stanley cup play. during his prime, foyston scored 27 points including 22 goals in 14 games in stanley cup play vs the best teams of the NHA/NHL, montreal and ottawa.

foyston's opponents in the 3 stanley cup series during his prime are a who's who of early HHOFers.

montreal had
lalonde, vezina, pitre, joe malone, joe hall, coutu, laviolette, berlinquette, odie cleghorn, among others.

vs montreal, foyston scored 7 goals and 10 points in 4 games in 1917 and won the cup.
he scored 9 goals and 10 points in 5 games in 1919 in the canceled flu series.

ottawa had
benedict, sprague cleghorn, buck boucher, gerard, hitchman, nighbor, broadbent, cy denneny, darragh, among others.

against basically the same ottawa team that completely shut down duke keats, foyston scored 6 goals and 7 points in 5 games.




i wouldn't say your team can't play D, but considering your D corps and goalie, it is 1 of the weakest teams defensively.

 

[MXD]

Wow...

Okay then.

If Howe can feast up on Quackenbush, Richard and Moore will feast up on, ingest, digest and puke on Rob Blake, so much he might look like Bryan McCabe in end with his supberb passing skills and on-ice agility. Quack wouldn't have been a 5-time All-Star Team (3 1st,2 second) if wouldn't have been able to stand forecheck for whoever it may be. And he was able to record this feat in MUCH LESS years than it took Howe to earn 6 Rosses. And don't make Noisy better than he is... Noisy will indeed often forecheck for the sole reason he won't win many faceoffs in this round. And heavy forechecking (with two players) means leaving either Moore and Richard or Barber and Anderson (which is not exactly good in playoffs) or Keon and ... let's say Ellis (for christ sakes, we're talking about the best backhander of hockey's history) on odd-man rushes. I'll say it again : my F's will never be very far from the D-Mens with my team. And everybody can pass on my team.

This said... WHO will take care of Keats? He won't play against your before you are on your home ice, and it's not because something happens once that it happens everytime. Keats was also extremely scrappy, you know...

This said, you haven't adressed depth problem, and Bob Froese is already starting to write memoes that the T-Birds only have 4 centers.

Hockey isn't a thing of one player beats your player. Gordie Howe was maybe the best RW (and even then, it's extremely discutable considering how much longevity weights in his case when compared with Richard, and frankly, I'd take Richard ahead of Howe for the playoffs.). My gameplan is to use all my team. Howe will not cause Quack to cause that much mistakes to turn the tide of the round himself, and you send too much mens to forecheck, well, that will means LOTS of odd-man rushes against you. If (and this is IF) Howe takes control of the puck after he takes control of the puck, he will have either Barber (who can certainly slow him enough to break any momentum or goal scoring opportunity), or Pulford (Howe's nightmare) on his back. If we ever go one-on-one, it's Dickie Moore that Howe's gonna face. And Dickie, well... was powerful enough toss Jean Béliveau on a regular basis when they played each other in the Quebec Senior Hockey League. And there was quite a size difference between Beliveau and Howe. Howe was maybe meaner than Béliveau, but that wasn't the kind of things that really meant anything for Dickie. So there is 3 guys amongst my LW's (you can even add Bridgman, who doesn't have the skills of my other guys, but could definitely play a good defensive game, and would probably opt for the frontal crosscheck whenever he misses his checking on Howe -- really not making this up here).

Howe won't be as efficient if you use him 28 minutes. Quackenbush was a NOTORIOUS time-logger, as well a Richard, but it would be ultimately pointless to have any of my 1st liners on the ice for more than 22 mins (it obviously an approximation), as players needs some icetime to get it : not only this tires more Howe and the remainder of the 1st line, but it makes all your other players much less effective in the end. Howe was definitely tough, but there's no way he'll be able to stand being on the ice against my four LW's, and the "tough" part of my defense (Phil Russell in particular). If it would work like this, everybody would be looking to trade up in order to have a...

Lindsay - Gretzky - Howe
Orr - Shore

1st line. And would say they would ice them 30 minutes a game (SOMEWHAT makes sense for the D's), or 40 for that matter.

Howe was good, but don't make him the sum of Lemieux, Gretz, Orr and Link Gaetz.

 

[MXD]

while zubov has been great after the lockout, for much of his career, he was really not far above average defensively. while zubov is an excellent passer and the threat of a counterattack is always there, he is also not very good against power forwards, especially early in his career.

Do I need to remember you that Zubov has a ridiculous production rate in the playoffs? One more for the danger of aggressive forechecking against my team.