ATD#8 Jim Robson Semi-Final: #1 Montreal Canadiens vs. #6 Seattle Thunderbirds
- 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.
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
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.
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
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,175
- 14,549
Should we hold off on the discussions until all of the first round series are complete?
(Either way, I won't be able to do any discussion until late this evening or possibly tomorrow evening.)
(Either way, I won't be able to do any discussion until late this evening or possibly tomorrow evening.)
Nice reward for beating MXD. You pull off an upset over a respected GM with a strong team, and what do you get? A best-of-seven against the Montreal Canadiens, the only team to reach the conference final in both drafts with playoffs.
The one thing I see when I look at this series is that the big edges that Seattle had in Round 1 behind the bench and in net are gone. The coaching edge is gone. Hitchcock and Adams is a great duo. But Arbour's one of the top three coaches of all-time. Give Seattle an edge in net, but it's small. Very small. I have Dryden No. 6 for goalies. Broda is in the top 10.
HO's biggest edge is on defence. Potvin's unarguably the best defenceman in this series, and I think Pronovost is the second best defenceman. He's really underrated, and the ultimate No. 2 in this draft. Seattle has four really good defencemen, all four capable of getting top pairing minutes, but nobody as good as Potvin or Pronovost.
Montreal's defence is very well-built. Ramage went too soon, but as a No. 4, he's not going to hurt you. Harry Howell and Bill Hajt could be one of the best shut-down pairings in the draft.
Seattle's going to need the top line to live up to their billing. And they're going to have to do it against a fabulous checking line. Seattle might be able to do some damage if they can get a match-up against Montreal's fourth line.
I expect that the Thunderbirds will key on Montreal's centres and right wings for the top two lines. If I see a chink in the armour of those lines, it's that the LWs are both out-of-place. Simmer's better suited to second line duty; the only reason to not have Hadfield on the fourth line is Jean Ratelle. Lalonde-Cournoyer is explosive and can go for three or four goals in a game. With Ratelle and Hooley Smith togehter, that line could be call the Underrated Line, because those guys don't get the credit they deserve.
The one thing I see when I look at this series is that the big edges that Seattle had in Round 1 behind the bench and in net are gone. The coaching edge is gone. Hitchcock and Adams is a great duo. But Arbour's one of the top three coaches of all-time. Give Seattle an edge in net, but it's small. Very small. I have Dryden No. 6 for goalies. Broda is in the top 10.
HO's biggest edge is on defence. Potvin's unarguably the best defenceman in this series, and I think Pronovost is the second best defenceman. He's really underrated, and the ultimate No. 2 in this draft. Seattle has four really good defencemen, all four capable of getting top pairing minutes, but nobody as good as Potvin or Pronovost.
Montreal's defence is very well-built. Ramage went too soon, but as a No. 4, he's not going to hurt you. Harry Howell and Bill Hajt could be one of the best shut-down pairings in the draft.
Seattle's going to need the top line to live up to their billing. And they're going to have to do it against a fabulous checking line. Seattle might be able to do some damage if they can get a match-up against Montreal's fourth line.
I expect that the Thunderbirds will key on Montreal's centres and right wings for the top two lines. If I see a chink in the armour of those lines, it's that the LWs are both out-of-place. Simmer's better suited to second line duty; the only reason to not have Hadfield on the fourth line is Jean Ratelle. Lalonde-Cournoyer is explosive and can go for three or four goals in a game. With Ratelle and Hooley Smith togehter, that line could be call the Underrated Line, because those guys don't get the credit they deserve.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,175
- 14,549
STRENGTHS/OPPORTUNITIES
BLUELINE: The Canadiens have a significant edge in top-end defensive talent. Denis Potvin is the best defenseman in this series by a fair margin, and is the definition of “complete”: he could skate, pass, check and block shots as well as any defenseman in hockey history. Marcel Pronovost is the next-best defenseman in the series: he was a four-time all-star known for fierce hip-checks, and his ability to rush the puck up the ice. He hardly missed any games (despite playing very aggressively) and was one of the top defensive players on a dynasty team. Harry Howell, probably the 4th best blueliner in the series, won the last Norris trophy before the Orr era, and was rated the “best defensive player” of the 1960s (Ultimate Hockey) due to his sublime positional play. I believe I can have these players on the ice for as much as 75 minutes in a (non-overtime) game without straining any of them. It will be tough to beat their disciplined positional player, toughness, and rushing ability.
Babe Siebert had an excellent three-year peak as a defenseman. However, his offensive numbers were unimpressive on the blueline (proving that he, unlike Potvin, had to trade off offense for defense). Siebert was strong, but he was also slow as a defenseman, which makes him vulnerable to a very fast team (Cournoyer, Lalonde, Ratelle). Rob Blake (Seattle's equivalent to Pronovost) was tough, but can’t match Pronovost’s ability to endure injuries (or his ability to play through them at a high level without missing games). Blake was a good PP quarterback but lacks Pronvost’s ability to rush the puck, and lacks the same level of playoff success. I like Bill White (Seattle's equivalent to Howell), but he never won a Norris and it would be unreasonable to call him the greatest defensive defenseman of his decade (Orr or not).
I’m a bit skeptical about Hod Stuart. My draft record shows that I’m not biased against pre-NHL players, but Stuart never even played in the NHA, PCHA or WCHL. In his final season before death, he played in a league dominated by Russell Bowie, Ernie Russell, Blair Russel and Harry Smith. It’s certainly not Stuart’s fault for not playing against high-quality opponents… but it does make me skeptical about whether his skill would carry over to the NHL. Furthermore, he was described as a clean player that switched leagues to get away from the IHL’s violence… how would he handle playing against Potvin, Smith and Shack? I might even have the better old-time defenseman in Hod Stuart (a proven player at the PCHA level with 6 all-star selections). Other than that, our defensive depth is quite similar (though I’d definitely take Barilko over Schoenfeld).
STRENGTH DOWN THE MIDDLE: Seattle has a good group of centres but I believe the Canadiens have an advantage on each line. On the first line, Seattle’s Norm Ullman (a two-time all-star with one goal-scoring crown) is solid but is clearly inferor to Newsy Lalonde, the greatest player of his generation. Lalonde led a professional league in scoring five times—and he proved his success could carry over into the NHL, where he led the league in goals twice and points three times including playoffs. Lalonde was a tough player and was willing to drop the gloves at times. In terms of the second line... I think I’m probably Marty Barry’s biggest supporter on this website. But he still doesn’t match Jean Ratelle—the top two-way forward on Team Canada 1972, a Pearson-winner, a five-time 90-point player, and a top playoff performer who was routinely among the PO scoring leaders during his years in Boston. In terms of the depth forwards, I believe Steve Kaspar is clearly inferior to Doug Jarvis, one of the top ten greatest defensive forwards in NHL history, with considerable playoff success. Finally, Troy Murray (Selke trophy, size, toughness and a 99-point season) beats Ron Sutter (who matches Murray in size and competitiveness, but not in positional play, PK, or scoring touch).
DEPTH: The Canadiens have better depth players, especially at forward. My fourth line features Troy Murray, a relentless, hard-working Selke-trophy winner. He was a top penalty killer his entire career but had enough talent to score 99 points in a season. In fact, his two 70-point seasons top the single-season offensive output of every player on Seattle’s bottom six. Marcel Bonin won the retro Smythe for his phenomenal playoffs in 1959 (10 goals in 11 games). Bonin had enough speed and talent to regularly play on the top line with Beliveau and Richard; he was the player who would battle for pucks in the corner, and would act as the stars' defensive consciousness. Pit Martin topped the 70-pt mark four times and was regarded as a tireless worker, not afraid to call on teammates who didn’t play hard every shift. In terms of benched players… the Canadiens feature Lloyd Cook, a six-time all-star in the PCHA. He was one of the top offensive defenseman of his era (finishing in the top ten in scoring six times… that’s not top ten among defensemen, but top ten in the league) and Pierre Turgeon (often criticized, but nobody has ever denied his talent or ability to get the most out of his linemates – see Derek King’s 38-goal season or Scott Young’s 40-goal season).
Seattle has several good role players: Mike McPhee is a tough, scrappy player; Mike Murphy has a decent scoring touch; Ron Sutter can drop the gloves and is a good hitter; Jim McNeil is a solid all-around depth defenseman. These are all solid players, but I don’t think that any of those players have stepped it up, either as consistently or to the same extent, as the Canadiens’ depth players. This is an even more important point considering that the Canadiens are rested and Seattle is tired from playing a tough series against a very good opponent.
WEAKNESSES/THREATS
STOPPING HOWE: Howe is the best player on either team, and stopping him will be the key to victory. Denis Potvin will be matched up against Howe during most shifts—I believe that Potvin has the tools to stop Mr. Hockey. Potvin will be able to contain Howe given his excellent skating ability (so he won’t get caught out of position), size and toughness (so Howe loses an advantage he had over most of his contemporaries), and his mean streak (Potvin can match Howe elbow-for-elbow). Potvin’s excellent hip-check will be a dangerous weapon against Howe. Mr. Hockey is prone to losing his temper and Potvin is willing to drop the gloves—my defense is deep enough to handle Potvin spending five minutes in the box, if it means that the best player in the series stays off the ice as well. Additionally, Harry Howell was rated the top defensive defenseman of the 1960s, so if anybody knows how to shut down Howe, it would be my #3 defenseman. Howell was a steady positional defenseman who was rarely caught off-guard. His consistency and smart positioning will mitigate the advantage of Howe’s speed. Howell also logged huge amounts of ice time for the Rangers while keeping reasonable PIM totals, so he won’t give Howe many PP opportunities. Potvin and Howell will also be able to contain Howe’s linemates, Ullman and Conacher, who will be unlikely to break through their excellent positional play.
On top of this, I have one of the best defensive lines in the draft. Doug Jarvis was the top defensive forward (along with Gainey, obviously) on the Canadiens’ 1970s dynasty, so he know what it takes to shut down tough opponents. Jarvis would likely be matched up against Ullman and will use his steady positioning and sense of anticipation to cover the centre. Jarvis’s excellent poke-checking will be a big asset here, as it will force Ullman to make rushed decisions, or turn over the puck while passing to the two better goal-scorers on the line. Ullman isn’t soft, but he won’t be able to fight his was past a player like Jarvis either. Marcotte, my LW, will likely get the majority of the direct assignments against Howe. He had “heart desire and hustle” and could “dish out bone-jarring hits”. He was a top penalty killer, a SHG threat, and “never let up and did whatever it took to win games.” This is the type of player you want to match up against Howe—a player with excellent defensive presence, who could match his intense physical player, and who would equal Howe’s relentlessness and consistency. Pit Martin, known for his toughness and penalty killing in addition to his excellent playmaking abilities, will cover Roy Conacher.
WEAK LW SCORING: I’ve identified LW scoring as one of my team’s major weaknesses. There’s nothing to mitigate this directly, but there are a few things that can contain this threat. First, Charlie Simmer is not the most talented first-line LW in the draft (understatement), but he knows his role. Simmer will use his size and strength, and will plant himself in front of Dryden’s crease (like Kerr or Andreychuk). This is a major asset against Seattle's defense corps and fourth line that are somewhat prone to taking penalties. This is also a major strength against a goalie that, in his prime, rarely dealt with crease-crashers due to a certain trio of elite defensemen. Simmer is a proven goal-scorer from up close and it will be very hard to move him out of the crease without drawing penalties. Playing on a line with Newsy Lalonde (a five-time scoring champion that could do it all on the ice) and Cournoyer (excellent speed and stickhandling), Simmer knows his role. He will open up the ice for his two speedier, more talented linemates by screening the goalie and keeping defenders occupied, though he can certainly put the puck in the net by screens or tips if he’s left alone.
Second, Baldy Northcott will likely have to face his longtime teammate Hooley Smith. Smith outscored Northcott all but one of the years they played together, and, due to his aggressive hits and pokechecks, was the more complete of the two. If the two linemates face, Smith has a decided advantage at both ends of the ice.
Third, Ed Westfall, the best defensive, will likely cover Simmer or Hadfield. Seattle will have to either player their best defensive forward out of position, or waste his talents on Simmer/Hadfield while letting the explosive Cournoyer and Smith skate freely.
1,700 WORDS LATER
Overall... I think this matchup will feature some great old-time hockey. I think our advantages down the middle, on the blueline, and in terms of depth, will allow us to prevail in a hard-fought 7-game series.
BLUELINE: The Canadiens have a significant edge in top-end defensive talent. Denis Potvin is the best defenseman in this series by a fair margin, and is the definition of “complete”: he could skate, pass, check and block shots as well as any defenseman in hockey history. Marcel Pronovost is the next-best defenseman in the series: he was a four-time all-star known for fierce hip-checks, and his ability to rush the puck up the ice. He hardly missed any games (despite playing very aggressively) and was one of the top defensive players on a dynasty team. Harry Howell, probably the 4th best blueliner in the series, won the last Norris trophy before the Orr era, and was rated the “best defensive player” of the 1960s (Ultimate Hockey) due to his sublime positional play. I believe I can have these players on the ice for as much as 75 minutes in a (non-overtime) game without straining any of them. It will be tough to beat their disciplined positional player, toughness, and rushing ability.
Babe Siebert had an excellent three-year peak as a defenseman. However, his offensive numbers were unimpressive on the blueline (proving that he, unlike Potvin, had to trade off offense for defense). Siebert was strong, but he was also slow as a defenseman, which makes him vulnerable to a very fast team (Cournoyer, Lalonde, Ratelle). Rob Blake (Seattle's equivalent to Pronovost) was tough, but can’t match Pronovost’s ability to endure injuries (or his ability to play through them at a high level without missing games). Blake was a good PP quarterback but lacks Pronvost’s ability to rush the puck, and lacks the same level of playoff success. I like Bill White (Seattle's equivalent to Howell), but he never won a Norris and it would be unreasonable to call him the greatest defensive defenseman of his decade (Orr or not).
I’m a bit skeptical about Hod Stuart. My draft record shows that I’m not biased against pre-NHL players, but Stuart never even played in the NHA, PCHA or WCHL. In his final season before death, he played in a league dominated by Russell Bowie, Ernie Russell, Blair Russel and Harry Smith. It’s certainly not Stuart’s fault for not playing against high-quality opponents… but it does make me skeptical about whether his skill would carry over to the NHL. Furthermore, he was described as a clean player that switched leagues to get away from the IHL’s violence… how would he handle playing against Potvin, Smith and Shack? I might even have the better old-time defenseman in Hod Stuart (a proven player at the PCHA level with 6 all-star selections). Other than that, our defensive depth is quite similar (though I’d definitely take Barilko over Schoenfeld).
STRENGTH DOWN THE MIDDLE: Seattle has a good group of centres but I believe the Canadiens have an advantage on each line. On the first line, Seattle’s Norm Ullman (a two-time all-star with one goal-scoring crown) is solid but is clearly inferor to Newsy Lalonde, the greatest player of his generation. Lalonde led a professional league in scoring five times—and he proved his success could carry over into the NHL, where he led the league in goals twice and points three times including playoffs. Lalonde was a tough player and was willing to drop the gloves at times. In terms of the second line... I think I’m probably Marty Barry’s biggest supporter on this website. But he still doesn’t match Jean Ratelle—the top two-way forward on Team Canada 1972, a Pearson-winner, a five-time 90-point player, and a top playoff performer who was routinely among the PO scoring leaders during his years in Boston. In terms of the depth forwards, I believe Steve Kaspar is clearly inferior to Doug Jarvis, one of the top ten greatest defensive forwards in NHL history, with considerable playoff success. Finally, Troy Murray (Selke trophy, size, toughness and a 99-point season) beats Ron Sutter (who matches Murray in size and competitiveness, but not in positional play, PK, or scoring touch).
DEPTH: The Canadiens have better depth players, especially at forward. My fourth line features Troy Murray, a relentless, hard-working Selke-trophy winner. He was a top penalty killer his entire career but had enough talent to score 99 points in a season. In fact, his two 70-point seasons top the single-season offensive output of every player on Seattle’s bottom six. Marcel Bonin won the retro Smythe for his phenomenal playoffs in 1959 (10 goals in 11 games). Bonin had enough speed and talent to regularly play on the top line with Beliveau and Richard; he was the player who would battle for pucks in the corner, and would act as the stars' defensive consciousness. Pit Martin topped the 70-pt mark four times and was regarded as a tireless worker, not afraid to call on teammates who didn’t play hard every shift. In terms of benched players… the Canadiens feature Lloyd Cook, a six-time all-star in the PCHA. He was one of the top offensive defenseman of his era (finishing in the top ten in scoring six times… that’s not top ten among defensemen, but top ten in the league) and Pierre Turgeon (often criticized, but nobody has ever denied his talent or ability to get the most out of his linemates – see Derek King’s 38-goal season or Scott Young’s 40-goal season).
Seattle has several good role players: Mike McPhee is a tough, scrappy player; Mike Murphy has a decent scoring touch; Ron Sutter can drop the gloves and is a good hitter; Jim McNeil is a solid all-around depth defenseman. These are all solid players, but I don’t think that any of those players have stepped it up, either as consistently or to the same extent, as the Canadiens’ depth players. This is an even more important point considering that the Canadiens are rested and Seattle is tired from playing a tough series against a very good opponent.
WEAKNESSES/THREATS
STOPPING HOWE: Howe is the best player on either team, and stopping him will be the key to victory. Denis Potvin will be matched up against Howe during most shifts—I believe that Potvin has the tools to stop Mr. Hockey. Potvin will be able to contain Howe given his excellent skating ability (so he won’t get caught out of position), size and toughness (so Howe loses an advantage he had over most of his contemporaries), and his mean streak (Potvin can match Howe elbow-for-elbow). Potvin’s excellent hip-check will be a dangerous weapon against Howe. Mr. Hockey is prone to losing his temper and Potvin is willing to drop the gloves—my defense is deep enough to handle Potvin spending five minutes in the box, if it means that the best player in the series stays off the ice as well. Additionally, Harry Howell was rated the top defensive defenseman of the 1960s, so if anybody knows how to shut down Howe, it would be my #3 defenseman. Howell was a steady positional defenseman who was rarely caught off-guard. His consistency and smart positioning will mitigate the advantage of Howe’s speed. Howell also logged huge amounts of ice time for the Rangers while keeping reasonable PIM totals, so he won’t give Howe many PP opportunities. Potvin and Howell will also be able to contain Howe’s linemates, Ullman and Conacher, who will be unlikely to break through their excellent positional play.
On top of this, I have one of the best defensive lines in the draft. Doug Jarvis was the top defensive forward (along with Gainey, obviously) on the Canadiens’ 1970s dynasty, so he know what it takes to shut down tough opponents. Jarvis would likely be matched up against Ullman and will use his steady positioning and sense of anticipation to cover the centre. Jarvis’s excellent poke-checking will be a big asset here, as it will force Ullman to make rushed decisions, or turn over the puck while passing to the two better goal-scorers on the line. Ullman isn’t soft, but he won’t be able to fight his was past a player like Jarvis either. Marcotte, my LW, will likely get the majority of the direct assignments against Howe. He had “heart desire and hustle” and could “dish out bone-jarring hits”. He was a top penalty killer, a SHG threat, and “never let up and did whatever it took to win games.” This is the type of player you want to match up against Howe—a player with excellent defensive presence, who could match his intense physical player, and who would equal Howe’s relentlessness and consistency. Pit Martin, known for his toughness and penalty killing in addition to his excellent playmaking abilities, will cover Roy Conacher.
WEAK LW SCORING: I’ve identified LW scoring as one of my team’s major weaknesses. There’s nothing to mitigate this directly, but there are a few things that can contain this threat. First, Charlie Simmer is not the most talented first-line LW in the draft (understatement), but he knows his role. Simmer will use his size and strength, and will plant himself in front of Dryden’s crease (like Kerr or Andreychuk). This is a major asset against Seattle's defense corps and fourth line that are somewhat prone to taking penalties. This is also a major strength against a goalie that, in his prime, rarely dealt with crease-crashers due to a certain trio of elite defensemen. Simmer is a proven goal-scorer from up close and it will be very hard to move him out of the crease without drawing penalties. Playing on a line with Newsy Lalonde (a five-time scoring champion that could do it all on the ice) and Cournoyer (excellent speed and stickhandling), Simmer knows his role. He will open up the ice for his two speedier, more talented linemates by screening the goalie and keeping defenders occupied, though he can certainly put the puck in the net by screens or tips if he’s left alone.
Second, Baldy Northcott will likely have to face his longtime teammate Hooley Smith. Smith outscored Northcott all but one of the years they played together, and, due to his aggressive hits and pokechecks, was the more complete of the two. If the two linemates face, Smith has a decided advantage at both ends of the ice.
Third, Ed Westfall, the best defensive, will likely cover Simmer or Hadfield. Seattle will have to either player their best defensive forward out of position, or waste his talents on Simmer/Hadfield while letting the explosive Cournoyer and Smith skate freely.
1,700 WORDS LATER
Overall... I think this matchup will feature some great old-time hockey. I think our advantages down the middle, on the blueline, and in terms of depth, will allow us to prevail in a hard-fought 7-game series.
Last edited:
in '37, when siebert won the hart, he had 8 goals and 20 assists. he finished 8th overall in assists. 8th overall in assists is very impressive to me.
his team, the habs, were the 2nd lowest scoring team, so it was not the case that he racked up assists on a high scoring team. that may also be the reason he won the hart.
in '36, with boston, he scored 12 goals. 10th place had 16 goals. i'd say that's very good for a d-man. (i'm a bit confused here, because everything i've read says that siebert was moved to D by habs' coach cecil hart. siebert was a 1st team AS d-man in '36, '37 and '38, but in '36 he played for boston. so either he was moved to D by boston, or he was 1st AS LW in '36.)
8g and 11a in '38.
seems to be good production from the blueline. maybe someone knows how siebert ranked in d-man scoring.
i don't believe hod stuart was even alive to play in any of those leagues. he was a contemporary of cyclone taylor, and they were 2 of the highest paid players in the IHL.
i believe the same source you cited for howell being the best defensive d-man of the '60s cites hod stuart as the best skater, best defensive d-man and best offensive d-man of the decade of the 1900s.
you yourself cited a newspaper article in which hockey writers were of the general opinion that in the early '30s, eddie shore was roughly as good as stuart (and taylor and cleghorn). it's opinion, but it's also fairly close to stuart's time, and i think it's likely that at least some of those same hockey writers saw stuart play (stuart played 30 years prior, in quebec, ottawa and montreal, as well as in the US). i don't think it's very different from relying on the opinions of hockey writers from the '60s.
lester patrick, a contemporary of stuart's, claimed in 1925 that stuart was the best d-man he'd ever seen. one man's opinion, and that doesn't cover that much time, but it probably included stars like gerard, cameron, cleghorn, buck boucher, etc. i'm not saying hod stuart was better than those players, just that he was a great player.
hod stuart would be able to excel in the NHA/NHL or PCHA because
1. he was big. from dave stubbs' column from 1-12-2007, which quotes a 1907 montreal star article:
"He is so big that it took half a dozen men to carry him in and for several minutes he lay like one dead."
(this was after stuart was knocked out by stick blows to the head.)
2. he was an excellent skater. everything i've read says that stuart was fast and had a fluid stride.
3. he was excellent both ways. his HHOF bio describes him as the most complete player of the time, a great rusher and a great checker. the same source you cited for howell being the best defensive d-man of the '60s cites hod stuart as the best skater, best defensive d-man and best offensive d-man of the decade of the 1900s.
i was expecting someone to bring up the issue of stuart leaving the IHL because of violence. not a concern at all. early hockey was extremely violent compared to today.
i ran across a few things that show he did not shrink away from physical play.
from a canadian academic paper about violence and masculinity in hockey:
The (Montreal) Star also praised Stuart's determination in the face of the Silver Seven's efforts to intimidate him: "Ottawa seemed to want to get at Hod Stuart. They did land Hod, and that gentleman left a gory souvenir in Dey's Rink to mark where he fell," wrote the Star reporter. "He was 'got at' early, probably after half a minute's play, but that nerved Stuart to his work, and he played the best game of this season, fully earning the high compensation given for his services" (3). In addition, the newspaper noted that police officers were present at the game in an attempt to deter the type of violence that occurred in the January meeting of the two clubs. "However, no officer was needed," commented the Star reporter, "and the game was played to a strenuous, but not unduly rough, finish"
......
Like the Montreal Star, the Evening Journal commended Stuart for persevering in the face of danger:
"Hod Stuart seemed to be the object of the Ottawa's "love" taps and he received several, but he generally returned the compliment. Stuart was laid out shortly after play started with a nasty cut, but returned to the game in a few minutes with a big square plaster over his forehead. Hod played the game of his life and was responsible for several of the Wandere[r] scores by his brilliant rushes. He also saved the situation several times by his beautiful checking."
the last 2 lines are particularly good, and are consistent with stuart's HHOF bio. also note his high salary.
ottawa tried to injure montreal's best players, incuding stuart, but stuart still played a brilliant game.
maybe you can find the january 12 column by dave stubbs in the montreal gazette from this year, in which he described the january 12, 1907 game between ottawa and the wanderers.
Blatchford and Johnson already had been carted off the ice, out cold from stick blows by Spittal and Harry Smith, when Smith's brother, Alf, "came skating right across the rink (toward Stuart)," the Star reported, "and without any apparent provocation hit the big fellow a blow across the forehead and Stuart dropped.
3 ottawa players were charged with assault for their actions in that game. that is the kind of violence stuart fled from. (although the above incidents were with the wanderers, after stuart left the IHL. IHL may have been even worse.)
stubbs' column also described stuart as "his era's finest defensive player."
the kind of violence used by players like potvin and shack does not compare with the blatant attacks to the head endured by hod stuart. if your players want to get suspended, OK.
what reason is there to think lloyd cook was better than stuart? he's not even in the hall of fame now, while stuart was in the inaugural class. was eddie shore compared to lloyd cook?
smith:
regular season: .58 points per game
playoffs: .38 points per game
northcott:
regular season: .55 points per game
playoffs: .42 points per game
i don't see a decided advantage in the offensive zone, especially since this is the playoffs. northcott has better scorers for linemates. he also led the '35 cup winning maroons in goals and points in the playoffs.
northcott is the also the 3rd best scorer on the line, and mostly a digger/support player, while smith is the 2nd best scorer on his line.
smith was a complete player, but so was northcott. northcott also played D, so he was likely good defensively. in the retro smythe page on the HHOF site, northcott is described as a "strong back-checking winger" and i believe he was mentioned in the retroactive awards thread as a retro selke winner (as was smith). that doesn't mean he was the best defensive forward at the time, but it does further corroborate that he was good defensively. northcott was also well above average size for the time, and fits his digger role very well.
smith was a more physical player, but he was also an undisciplined player who took a lot of penalties. smith was one of the more penalized players of a violent era.
a 1 month suspension in a violent time like '20s has to be a concern.
smith is better, but the difference is not huge.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I think criticism of Hod Stuart based on era or inability to deal with physical play is pretty far from the mark. Again, there is a question of consistency here. Stuart was a contemporary of Cyclone Taylor, Didier Pitre and, in fact, Newsy Lalonde, who began his professional career with Canadian Soo in the IHL. Hod Stuart was eight years older than Newsy Lalonde. Exactly what is the huge difference here? That line drawn between pre-NHA and NHA hockey is artificial.
Stuart died before he had the chance to compete in the more organized professional leagues. He can and should be criticized for having a somewhat abbreviated career (in fact, this series features the two most prominent dead defensemen of all-time), but that's Stuart's only real issue, in my book. He was big, fast, physical and had real offensive skill.
I think Hod Stuart is a high-end 2-way second pairing defenseman, and was very good value where he was taken in the 9th round. There's not a single defenseman taken after Stuart that I'd rather have, and I think Stuart - White may be better than Pronovost - Ramage. Pronovost is the best of the bunch, but Ramage is the worst and doesn't really provide what Pronovost needs in a partner, in my opinion, although against a team that attacks more with physicality than speed, Ramage's issues are less glaring.
Stuart died before he had the chance to compete in the more organized professional leagues. He can and should be criticized for having a somewhat abbreviated career (in fact, this series features the two most prominent dead defensemen of all-time), but that's Stuart's only real issue, in my book. He was big, fast, physical and had real offensive skill.
I think Hod Stuart is a high-end 2-way second pairing defenseman, and was very good value where he was taken in the 9th round. There's not a single defenseman taken after Stuart that I'd rather have, and I think Stuart - White may be better than Pronovost - Ramage. Pronovost is the best of the bunch, but Ramage is the worst and doesn't really provide what Pronovost needs in a partner, in my opinion, although against a team that attacks more with physicality than speed, Ramage's issues are less glaring.
Because of the two elite checking lines, the number one seeded team (Montreal) is going to stand a better chance because Arbour will get his matchups without much difficulty. That's not to say Adams and Hitchcock aren't going to be able to change on the fly, but it always seems like there's one mistake a game that can be contributed to doing so. If the series is tight, those few mistakes could be costly.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,828
- 16,563
TO HO.... Do you intend to match lines, and if you do, which lines would you match? You have HOI, and probably the biggest edge of the remaining playoffs when comparing D-Mens. Let's call it a wash in the goaltending crease - I'd take Dryden over Broda, but Dryden without the Top-3 is enough for me to even it out. Your team has AT LEAST 3 of the 4 best D-Mens of this round, and should be able to avoid much of the trouble that will cause the rebound-based offense of Seattle. Let's not forget Ramage in that aspect : I think you picked him too early (and told this to you on PM a few times I think...), but he won't be burned against Seattle, and will help with the rebounds. Not much to say with the bottom pairings, both are kinda identical. The main thing is... who will go against Howe?
I'd also take (in 1 c. 1, 2 c.2, etc...) the four Canadiens centers before the 4 Seattle centers. You're exposed at LW for sure, however.
I'd also take (in 1 c. 1, 2 c.2, etc...) the four Canadiens centers before the 4 Seattle centers. You're exposed at LW for sure, however.
This is bigger then a lot of people think, at least to me. In a draft that is this close, and especially in a series that is fairly close, I personally need to look at minor things to see who has an advantage. Although Seattle has two great coaches, I'm giving the coaching advantage to the Habs, because of the things Arbour will be able to do with this convinence (home ice advantage).
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,175
- 14,549
I’m certainly not blaming Stuart for dying young, but the fact remains that he was unproven. I have little doubt that he was one of the best defensemen of his era, but he spent virtually no time against NHL/PCHA/WCHL-calibre competition.
When Stuart dominated the CAHL, he was up against Harry Trihey, Russel Bowie, Billy Christmas (awesome name) and Art Hooper. To my knowledge, none of those players have ever been drafted in an ATD. Similar players (Ernie Russell, Russell Bowie, Grover Sargent) dominated the ECAHA the year Stuart played in it. I’m not trying to be disrespectful to the players that laid the path for semi-pro and professional hockey, but I question if any of them are good enough to be a #2 defenseman on a good team in the ATD. (To his credit, Stuart played well in his two years in IHL, and actually did face some good competition. But I wouldn’t base a trip to the HOF, or heavy PO minutes on this draft, on just two years).
Also, Hod Stuart is in the Hall of Fame, but not the Worldwide Hockey Hall of Fame. (I think the latter is more credible). One voter stated, “The actual Hall of Fame was easily swayed by tragic deaths in its early years. Hod Staurt, Hobey Baker, Scotty Davidson. In my opinion none of these deserve induction based on their playing careers; they may have been great had they continued to play, but they did not.â€
The other knock against Stuart is that he was (according so some
sources, at least) self and disliked by his teammates:
I realize that things were different then, and that players weren’t compensated nearly as well as they are now. Still, quitting your team in the middle of the night, and then having your GM and teammates relived, indicates that Stuart was a bit of a scandal-maker. (This is almost Yashin-like). This is not the kind of player I want to rely on for big minutes in the second round.
(Yes, many players in these days did bad things. Shore and Cleghorn were probably terrible human beings. But they never quit on their team and, if anything, their faults came from trying too hard).
I don’t think that Smith and Northcott are very close. Both were tough, two-way players, but Northcott is much better statistically and was held in a much higher regard by his peers. Northcott had one huge year (1933) and one more year with a top-ten finish, but Smith was clearly better and more consistent. Smith was in the top ten in scoring 6 times in eleven years. I’ll quote myself from a previous thread:
During the seven years when Smith and Northcott were teammates, Smith tied or outscored him six times in the regular season and four times in the playoffs (missing one PO entirely).
Northcott was an all-star once; my research shows he was never again an all-star candidate and never received Hart consideration. Smith finished second (only to Eddie Shore) for the Hart in 1936 and was also a finalist in 1926. Smith was a two-time all-star and my research showed he was only a few votes away from two more selections.
Finally, the drop in Smith’s numbers has everything to do with era. Here’s a look at PPG in the playoffs:
Smith (’25-41): 0.38 ppg
Morenz (’24-37): 0.43 ppg
Cook (’27-’38): 0.52 ppg
Stewart (’26-’40): 0.41 ppg
Joliat (’23-’38): 0.48 ppg
Busher Jackson (’30-’44): 0.42 ppg
Every player from Smith’s era had terrible numbers, even the superstars. The difference between Smith and the best PO producer (Cook) is less than 1 point per 7 game series.
I’ll withdraw my comments about Goodfellow. I’ll admit I was wrong. As far as I can tell, he actually led defensemen in scoring three straight years. Now, this was a lousy time for offensive defensemen (other top five scorers were Joe Jerwa x2, Jimmy Fowller, Doug Young, defense-first Ott Heller and a past-his-prime Eddie Shore x2) and his margin of victory is tiny (average of 2 pts per year), but I’ll give credit where it’s due.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,175
- 14,549
Yes, I will line match during home games. (I will do a bit of cutting and pasting from what I wrote earlier here as I'm a bit short for time now and will be heading out of town for the weekend):
Potvin and Howell will be matched up again Howe's line during home games. When the Islanders won their fourth straight Cup, Potvin played a big part in shutting down Gretzky (fresh off a 71 goal, 196 point season). Obviously Potvin had a great supporting cast, but if he can shut down Gretzky in the playoffs, I think he can contain Howe for this series. Potvin will be able to contain Howe given his excellent skating ability (so he won’t get caught out of position), size and toughness (so Howe loses an advantage he had over most of his contemporaries), and his mean streak (Potvin can match Howe elbow-for-elbow). Potvin’s excellent hip-check will be a dangerous weapon against Howe. Mr. Hockey is prone to losing his temper and Potvin is willing to drop the gloves—my defense is deep enough to handle Potvin spending five minutes in the box, if it means that the best player in the series stays off the ice as well.
Harry Howell is one of the best defensive blueliners of the 1960s; he was a strong positional defender who used his strength to clear the puck out of harm's way. He was quite disciplined and will usually be available during the PK. Howell matches up very well against Howe, since he matches his strength, and won't retaliate to Howe's frequent dirty cross-checks and hooks.
Marcotte, my LW, will likely get the majority of the direct assignments against Howe. He had “heart desire and hustle†and could “dish out bone-jarring hitsâ€. He was a top penalty killer, a SHG threat, and “never let up and did whatever it took to win games.†This is the type of player you want to match up against Howe—a player with excellent defensive presence, who could match his intense physical player, and who would equal Howe’s relentlessness and consistency. Pit Martin-- known for his ruggedness, determination and PK ability--will line up against Conacher, who had speed and strength but did not play much of a physical game. Doug Jarvis, one of the top ten defensive forwards of all time, will cover Norm Ullman (a great player, but inferior to Clarke and Esposito that Jarvis helped shut down on the Habs dynasty).
It could be risky putting most of my top defensive players against the Howe line. However, Seattle's bottom two lines have minimal offense (the bottom six have combined for exactly one 70 point season with all of them except Leswick playing their entire careers in a very high-scoring era). Seattle has a solid second line, but playing a strong, tough Selke winner (Murray), an excellent grinder along the boards (Shack), and the defensive consciousness of the top line on a dynasty team (Bonin) should be enough to hold them in check.
I want my top line to play against Seattle's fourth line. Cournoyer should speed past Leswick consistently. Leswick was a pesky trash-talker, but I don't think that the highly disciplined, efficient Cournoyer can be taken off his game like that. Lalonde vs. Sutter is a mis-match; Sutter's a good checker but Lalonde is a three-time scoring champion at the NHL level. Flatley is a good defensive forward, but Simmer was tough, strong and was practically immovable from the crease during his consecutive 56-goal seasons.
I want my second line to play against Seattle's third. I'm actually looking forward to the Hadfield vs. Westfall matchup; Seattle will have to waste its best defensive forward on my weakest top-six scorer (or play Westfall away from his natural position). Mike McPhee is solid, but I don't think he has the ability to stop a player who, in his prime, was ranked just behind Morenz, Stewart, Boucher, Cook and Joliat in productivity. Kasper vs Ratelle is favourable, as Kasper is one of the smaller, less physical defensive centres and Ratelle should be able to exploit his advantage in speed.
Potvin and Howell will be matched up again Howe's line during home games. When the Islanders won their fourth straight Cup, Potvin played a big part in shutting down Gretzky (fresh off a 71 goal, 196 point season). Obviously Potvin had a great supporting cast, but if he can shut down Gretzky in the playoffs, I think he can contain Howe for this series. Potvin will be able to contain Howe given his excellent skating ability (so he won’t get caught out of position), size and toughness (so Howe loses an advantage he had over most of his contemporaries), and his mean streak (Potvin can match Howe elbow-for-elbow). Potvin’s excellent hip-check will be a dangerous weapon against Howe. Mr. Hockey is prone to losing his temper and Potvin is willing to drop the gloves—my defense is deep enough to handle Potvin spending five minutes in the box, if it means that the best player in the series stays off the ice as well.
Harry Howell is one of the best defensive blueliners of the 1960s; he was a strong positional defender who used his strength to clear the puck out of harm's way. He was quite disciplined and will usually be available during the PK. Howell matches up very well against Howe, since he matches his strength, and won't retaliate to Howe's frequent dirty cross-checks and hooks.
Marcotte, my LW, will likely get the majority of the direct assignments against Howe. He had “heart desire and hustle†and could “dish out bone-jarring hitsâ€. He was a top penalty killer, a SHG threat, and “never let up and did whatever it took to win games.†This is the type of player you want to match up against Howe—a player with excellent defensive presence, who could match his intense physical player, and who would equal Howe’s relentlessness and consistency. Pit Martin-- known for his ruggedness, determination and PK ability--will line up against Conacher, who had speed and strength but did not play much of a physical game. Doug Jarvis, one of the top ten defensive forwards of all time, will cover Norm Ullman (a great player, but inferior to Clarke and Esposito that Jarvis helped shut down on the Habs dynasty).
It could be risky putting most of my top defensive players against the Howe line. However, Seattle's bottom two lines have minimal offense (the bottom six have combined for exactly one 70 point season with all of them except Leswick playing their entire careers in a very high-scoring era). Seattle has a solid second line, but playing a strong, tough Selke winner (Murray), an excellent grinder along the boards (Shack), and the defensive consciousness of the top line on a dynasty team (Bonin) should be enough to hold them in check.
I want my top line to play against Seattle's fourth line. Cournoyer should speed past Leswick consistently. Leswick was a pesky trash-talker, but I don't think that the highly disciplined, efficient Cournoyer can be taken off his game like that. Lalonde vs. Sutter is a mis-match; Sutter's a good checker but Lalonde is a three-time scoring champion at the NHL level. Flatley is a good defensive forward, but Simmer was tough, strong and was practically immovable from the crease during his consecutive 56-goal seasons.
I want my second line to play against Seattle's third. I'm actually looking forward to the Hadfield vs. Westfall matchup; Seattle will have to waste its best defensive forward on my weakest top-six scorer (or play Westfall away from his natural position). Mike McPhee is solid, but I don't think he has the ability to stop a player who, in his prime, was ranked just behind Morenz, Stewart, Boucher, Cook and Joliat in productivity. Kasper vs Ratelle is favourable, as Kasper is one of the smaller, less physical defensive centres and Ratelle should be able to exploit his advantage in speed.
Last edited:
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,828
- 16,563
Fair enough. Only disgressing considering Kasper vs. Ratelle. Okay, quite a size disadvantage for Kasper, but I don't think Ratelle can really outskate Kasper on a regular basis, and Ratelle defensive-savvy a bit goes waste against Kasper line -- you'll like having Ratelle whenever you're playing away games however and don't chose your matchup. And it's not like you want Hadfield to go against Howe (well... I guess so) to much either.
I'd add : not only Potvin was able to shutdown Gretzky, but he'll now have to work with a much better D-Men (I don't know who was Potvin's partner that year, but that partner is no Harry Howell for sure.) I don't think Roy Conacher will cause many troubles to Harry Howell.
I'd add : not only Potvin was able to shutdown Gretzky, but he'll now have to work with a much better D-Men (I don't know who was Potvin's partner that year, but that partner is no Harry Howell for sure.) I don't think Roy Conacher will cause many troubles to Harry Howell.
players did not suddenly get better when the NHA or PCHA were formed. the players who played in those leagues were the same players who played in the ECAHA and IHL and other leagues earlier. since stuart was clearly one of the best players in the IHL and ECAHA, there's no reason to doubt he would be one of the best players a few years later when the same players played in the NHA or PCHA.
pardon me if i find the opinion of one guy in recent times who never saw stuart play, less valuable than the opinions of sports writers who saw him play and described him as a great player, or than the HHOF, or than the teams that paid him so much money, or lester patrick, who said (in '25) stuart was the best he'd ever seen.
it actually indicates that he would rather not be killed. several players were in fact killed during stuart's career.
stuart was paid more money in the IHL than the wanderers offered, but he took the wanderers' offer to escape the terrible violence.
i showed above that stuart was still viciously attacked many times, and still played brilliantly, so your criticism is not meaningful.
we have no problem relying on a player who was viciously and intentionally beaten, was bloodied and knocked unconscious, got patched up, and then went back into the game and caused his team to win.
almost yashin-like is hilarious.
i agree smith was better. but the offensive difference is not big. smith was also never an AS at RW, which is his position here.
my other point was that northcott is the 3rd player on his line, more of a role player, while smith is the 2nd on his, more of a primary scorer.
i don't think hart voting from the time is the best way of evaluating players. when lionel hitchman was hart runner-up, he wasn't even an AS. hart voting at the time was much more dependent on value to the team. AS are more reliable for judging which were the best players, imo.
i agree the drop had to do with era, but northcott still scored more in the playoffs, and was still awarded the smythe for '35. smith was scoreless in the same playoffs.
you forgot marty barry, our 2nd line C.
regular season: .76 ppg
playoffs: .74 ppg
marty barry was the joe sakic of his time.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
In fairness to Stuart, we should look at the whole conversation (which can be found here in the entry for 1950):
Worldwide Hockey Hall of Fame said:
It's a fairly two-sided dialogue in the end, and it should be noted that while the WWHHOF is an interesting resource, they rarely offer much in the way of dialogues like the above to justify their selections. They also had problems with consistency and turnout and changed their minds a fair bit in the course of the process. By the way, Hod Stuart peaked at 14 of the required 15 votes in their 1980 elections.
The fact that they excluded Stuart because his career was too short (a nine year career in that era too short?!) but put in Joe Primeau (seven year NHL career and 3-4 year peak about thirty years later) on the first ballot is an embarassment to their process. It is far from a definitive source. Here's a bit of internal criticism of the process vis-a-vis old-time players:
Although I really enjoy poking around that website and reading their opinions (what little they offer in terms of dialogue), in the end I think that committee's methods and results are no better than those of the real hall. Among other things, they seem to have put in Bobrov, Malacek, Johansson and Sologubov almost entirely based on the second or thirdhand anecdotes of Arthur Chidlovski (who wasn't even a sperm yet when Malacek was playing) and yet puzzlingly leave out Fetisov, Vasiliev and Makarov, to name a few. While I value chidlovski's insights into European players, any committee that casts ten times more Hall votes for Nikolai Sologubov than it does for Andy Bathgate (1985 results) is either posturing in order to seem "different" from the guys in Toronto or simply out to ****ing lunch. To be honest, I think the quality of research and dialogue right here on this board is arguably better than what those guys came up with.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
The fact that Hooley Smith was basically a great center who played some wing is relevant here. I see him as a winger the same way I see Mark Messier: still a great player, but a bit out of position - not so much so that he can't be effective and won't know his assignments, but not in his "comfort zone", all the same. That being said, I think Smith is still a better scorer than Northcott by a fairly good margin, and he brings better backchecking and a lot more toughness.
Neither vote set is intelligible by modern standards. The Hart was largely a team-value award, as you say, while the All-Star voting was rife with problems that have already been discussed at length. I take it all with a grain of salt until after the war.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,828
- 16,563
That's what I thought after reading for a 2nd time : Bill Barilko being the 3rd or 4th best dead made so much absolutely nooooooo sense...
advantages:
offense, including both scoring lines.
3rd line
goaltending (though not very big)
size
disadvantages:
coaching
blueliners
speed
scoring depth, including from the D
4th line
blake lacks pronovost's level of playoff success, but that isn't important, imo, since pronovost played in an age of dynasties, and blake didn't.
white finished 3rd in norris 3 times on the strength of his D. howell won the norris in by far his best offensive season, but did not make make even the 2nd AS team in any other season.
in '72 and '74 white trailed only orr and park in norris voting. in '73 he trailed only orr and lapointe. howell never faced that level of competition.
ratelle's best season: 3rd in scoring, 2nd AS, 4th in hart (2nd forward in hart), pearson.
barry's best season: 3rd in scoring (just 2 points off the lead), 1st AS, 5th in hart (1st forward in hart), (retro) smythe, cup.
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
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
in the regular season, barry was nearly as good offensively as these players who won multiple scoring titles. what makes him great is that he was able to sustain his scoring into the playoffs, which resulted in back to back cups.
given barry's excellent playoff record, i think he's very comparable to ratelle.
even if ratelle is better, our 2nd line is better overall. foyston is better offensively than smith or hadfield, and northcott was about as good offensively as smith, who is not playing his best position.
foyston won 2 goal scoring titles, was a perennial AS in the PCHA, as well as MVP. he scored well over a goal per game, and over 2 points per game, in his prime against the best of the NHA/NHL in stanley cup play.
foyston even outscored lalonde over the 9 games of the '17 and '19 finals (20-14).
kasper did win the selke during jarvis' prime, in '82. he also finished ahead of jarvis in selke voting in '81, and was runner-up in '88 to carbonneau.
i have no problem giving jarvis the edge, but i don't think he's top 10, or that much better than kasper.
kasper matches up very well with both lalonde and ratelle. kasper made his name shadowing gretzky, and broke gainey's stranglehold on the selke. the speed advantage that montreal's top 2 C's usually have will be gone against kasper.
i don't see any fights. howe rarely fought. instead of losing his temper and fighting, he was much more likely to bide his time and wait for the opportunity to get away with a cheapshot.
potvin will be a tough test for howe. although potvin was very good defensively, i think potvin's best assest was actually his offensive ability.
something i've long wondered is why none of the strong teams traded for howell. detroit traded for gadsby (twice), montreal traded for worsley, toronto traded for bathgate, detroit traded for leswick, but no one traded for howell. does anyone know why?
an important point with regard to defending our top line is our forecheck. ullman was speedy and the best forechecker of his time. conacher was big and fast, and though not very aggressive, he played in the original 6, so i'm sure he knows how to hit. howe was a great forechecker as well and of course adds a strong physical element.
the usual positional D is not as important because our top line will usually be dumping it in and hitting the D.
this is a more chaotic situation for the D, and it's then less of a problem of breaking through excellent positional play, than it is of recovering the puck and finding an open man, or setting up the cycle.
we will avoid dumping it into potvin's side, as he is skilled enough to make quick outlet passes for a counterattack.
broda was a poor skater and did not come out to play the puck, so he won't impede our forechecking.
ullman was bigger and more physical than jarvis and i think he was faster, so i think he can manage to fight his way through.
we will use schoenfeld, mcphee and blake to handle simmer on the PP.
simmer is an andreychuk, and so is more the responsibility of a d-man anyway. hadfield is not a great threat, other than '72, he was a 25g 50p player. he also played closer to the net, and so is also more the responsibility of a d-man.
westfall will not be focusing on simmer or hadfield. instead, he will concentrate on potvin, montreal's most important player. westfall played with potvin for several seasons, so he should have some inside info. for this series, westfall's TOI will be increased a bit.
potvin is very dangerous from the blueline, and so in the offensive zone, westfall will cover him as if potvin were a forward. westfall will not log as much TOI as potvin, so others will have to contribute here as well. we think smothering potvin will be more effective than hitting him.
we will challenge potvin on the PP to take away his great point shots. we are OK leaving more space to the other point man.
we will also be sending fast food and junk food to broda's place everyday. he may have thought it was hard keeping in shape in the '40s and '50s, but he never had to deal with super-sized 3000 calorie meals. after a few days, he'll make krutov look like brind'amour.
offense, including both scoring lines.
3rd line
goaltending (though not very big)
size
disadvantages:
coaching
blueliners
speed
scoring depth, including from the D
4th line
i don't think blake lacks pronovost's ability to rush the puck, and i don't think that's a significant shortcoming.
blake lacks pronovost's level of playoff success, but that isn't important, imo, since pronovost played in an age of dynasties, and blake didn't.
i don't think that is any more unreasonable than claiming that howell was the best defensive d-man of the '60s.
white finished 3rd in norris 3 times on the strength of his D. howell won the norris in by far his best offensive season, but did not make make even the 2nd AS team in any other season.
in '72 and '74 white trailed only orr and park in norris voting. in '73 he trailed only orr and lapointe. howell never faced that level of competition.
they seem to have been pretty similar players, except schoenfeld lived past age 24 and made the AS team.
i think ratelle and barry are very close. they are very similar in almost every way.
ratelle's best season: 3rd in scoring, 2nd AS, 4th in hart (2nd forward in hart), pearson.
barry's best season: 3rd in scoring (just 2 points off the lead), 1st AS, 5th in hart (1st forward in hart), (retro) smythe, cup.
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
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
in the regular season, barry was nearly as good offensively as these players who won multiple scoring titles. what makes him great is that he was able to sustain his scoring into the playoffs, which resulted in back to back cups.
given barry's excellent playoff record, i think he's very comparable to ratelle.
even if ratelle is better, our 2nd line is better overall. foyston is better offensively than smith or hadfield, and northcott was about as good offensively as smith, who is not playing his best position.
foyston won 2 goal scoring titles, was a perennial AS in the PCHA, as well as MVP. he scored well over a goal per game, and over 2 points per game, in his prime against the best of the NHA/NHL in stanley cup play.
foyston even outscored lalonde over the 9 games of the '17 and '19 finals (20-14).
other than that jarvis played for the habs, i don't see him as top 10, despite playing in gainey's shadow.
kasper did win the selke during jarvis' prime, in '82. he also finished ahead of jarvis in selke voting in '81, and was runner-up in '88 to carbonneau.
i have no problem giving jarvis the edge, but i don't think he's top 10, or that much better than kasper.
kasper matches up very well with both lalonde and ratelle. kasper made his name shadowing gretzky, and broke gainey's stranglehold on the selke. the speed advantage that montreal's top 2 C's usually have will be gone against kasper.
potvin will be matched up against howe on most shifts on home ice, but not on the road. on the road we will get howe onto the ice against the 2nd or 3rd pair.
i don't see any fights. howe rarely fought. instead of losing his temper and fighting, he was much more likely to bide his time and wait for the opportunity to get away with a cheapshot.
potvin will be a tough test for howe. although potvin was very good defensively, i think potvin's best assest was actually his offensive ability.
i'm skeptical about howell's alleged status as the best defensive d-man of the '60s. he never made the 2nd team, despite playing in a relatively weak time for d-men. once he was 5th in norris, tied with terry harper, also a defensive d-man.
something i've long wondered is why none of the strong teams traded for howell. detroit traded for gadsby (twice), montreal traded for worsley, toronto traded for bathgate, detroit traded for leswick, but no one traded for howell. does anyone know why?
an important point with regard to defending our top line is our forecheck. ullman was speedy and the best forechecker of his time. conacher was big and fast, and though not very aggressive, he played in the original 6, so i'm sure he knows how to hit. howe was a great forechecker as well and of course adds a strong physical element.
the usual positional D is not as important because our top line will usually be dumping it in and hitting the D.
this is a more chaotic situation for the D, and it's then less of a problem of breaking through excellent positional play, than it is of recovering the puck and finding an open man, or setting up the cycle.
we will avoid dumping it into potvin's side, as he is skilled enough to make quick outlet passes for a counterattack.
broda was a poor skater and did not come out to play the puck, so he won't impede our forechecking.
i really don't see pokechecking being a big problem, ullman was an excellent stickhandler, as well as a fast skater.
ullman was bigger and more physical than jarvis and i think he was faster, so i think he can manage to fight his way through.
am i wrong, or was pit martin not a C?
i don't see how our D are prone to taking penalties. i think your D, other than hajt and howell, are more prone to penalties. our 4th line is prone to fighting majors, but they do not see much TOI.
we will use schoenfeld, mcphee and blake to handle simmer on the PP.
why would cournoyer and lalonde be skating freely if westfall covers simmer?
simmer is an andreychuk, and so is more the responsibility of a d-man anyway. hadfield is not a great threat, other than '72, he was a 25g 50p player. he also played closer to the net, and so is also more the responsibility of a d-man.
westfall will not be focusing on simmer or hadfield. instead, he will concentrate on potvin, montreal's most important player. westfall played with potvin for several seasons, so he should have some inside info. for this series, westfall's TOI will be increased a bit.
potvin is very dangerous from the blueline, and so in the offensive zone, westfall will cover him as if potvin were a forward. westfall will not log as much TOI as potvin, so others will have to contribute here as well. we think smothering potvin will be more effective than hitting him.
we will challenge potvin on the PP to take away his great point shots. we are OK leaving more space to the other point man.
we will also be sending fast food and junk food to broda's place everyday. he may have thought it was hard keeping in shape in the '40s and '50s, but he never had to deal with super-sized 3000 calorie meals. after a few days, he'll make krutov look like brind'amour.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Disagree. Seattle's 1st line is clearly the better unit, but looking at the head-to-head matchup on paper (which is a method I don't really like - the lines won't play each other), Montreal's 2nd line wins. I disagree with your assessment that Ratelle and Barry are close. While I really like Marty Barry and think he could have gone a couple of rounds higher, I simply don't think he's on Ratelle's level offensively. Ratelle was a stunning playmaker who made Vic Hadfield a 50 goal scorer. Most of Ratelle's teams in New York were quite mediocre offensively - worse than Barry's teams in Boston and Detroit - and opponents always keyed on Gilbert and Ratelle because they were the only really creative players the Rangers had.
Ratelle also won a Pearson (the MVP as chosen by the other players in the league) and quite likely would have taken home the Art Ross and maybe the Hart in his peak season (1972) if he hadn't had to play through a fractured ankle for the last month and a half. Career value for Barry and Ratelle is pretty close, but Ratelle clearly peaked higher, in my opinion. Hooley Smith and Frank Foyston are on about the same level offensively (I may even give Foyston the slight advantage here), but Smith provides considerably more in terms of checking and grit, not to mention the fact that he could kick Frank Foyston's ass.
I like Northcott a bit more than Hadfield, overall. Baldy will provide more offense and is probably a better backchecker, though big Vic is a lot more physical.
Agreed on all points, though Seattle's only real size advantage is on the first line. Other than Gordie and Co, the teams are quite even physically.
Again, agreed. I think the outcome of this series will hinge on Mr. Hockey, because Montreal will produce more points from the 2nd and 4th lines, while both third lines are really checking units. Gordie will obviously get his points, but Marcotte is not a bad matchup for the Habs' checkingline and Potvin/Howell is the best defensive pairing in the league after Kelly/Park. This is a tough one to call.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,828
- 16,563
Funny how we have completely different views on Northcutt... I see him as one of the best defensive-consciences available for a 2nd scoring line (don't think he would work very well on a 1st unit, though), and Seattle uses him extremely well on a 2nd line. I kinda see him as a poor man's Woodrow Dumart, if that makes sense (which is nothing bad considering he went MUCH lower)Seattle's 2nd line is one of the best 2nd units of the draft - as long as it doesn't have to go against a top unit. Whereas I think that Hadfield is a good guy to bring him some physicality in the offensive zone - ultimately, I see him as being not necessarily better, but more useful (if that makes sense...) offensive player than Northcutt.
We're in agreement with Potvin/Howell being the best pairing of the draft after that ridiculous Park/Kelly pairing. I rate Potvin/Howell about equal to a would-be Robinson/Savard pairing (minus the compatibility).
I'd take Montreal 3rd before Seattle 3rd any day of the week, though.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,175
- 14,549
The weather certainly took the fun out of that trip. Don't have too much time tonight but I'll see what I can respond to now.
(Just noticed that the votes are due tomorrow night so I might not get another chance to respond. It's been a fun discussion, everyone. Win or lose, I'll be back for more debates in the next round).
Hooley Smith out of positon
Smith was better as a centre, but he was still clearly an all-star calibre player at RW. He was a Hart finalist as a RW in 1926, and finished in the top ten in assists twice at RW. Smith was never an all-star at RW, but that's because all-star teams weren't voted on until 1931 (he switched to centre in 1932).
Stuart leaving the IHL
I don't blame Stuart for not wanting to get killed, but he handled situation very poorly. Literally walking away from your team, and secretly taking a night train out of town, is (at the very least) unprofessional and (at worst) selling your team out for personal greed.
Again, Stuart's own GM said "that the players are happy to be rid of "Mr. contractjumper" and all "his whims." This is not the kind of player I would want on my team.
Kasper/Jarvis
Kasper is a good defensive forward, but I stand by my statement that Jarvis is one of the very best defensive forwards in NHL history. He routinely went head-to-head against the league's best centres (including Trottier, Esposito, Ratelle and Sittler) in the playoffs. Two things are particularly impressive about Jarvis: first, he holds the all-time record for most consecutive games (964), showing that he was willing and able take on difficult assignments each game. Two, he always stayed out of the box (career-high of 34 PIM--Kasper has broke that 6 times), so he'll always be available on the PK. Jarvis placed in the top ten in Selke voting six times in nine years. (And, for the record, I think that Westfall is the best defensive forward on your team).
Howell
Howell was a Norris candidate twice and was Hart finalist in 1967, so that certainly gives him a higher peak than White (though I don't know why you compared the two of them, as White was in the prime of his career and Howell was recuperating from back surgery by the early 1970s). There's traditionally been a bias against defensive players in Norris voting, which could explain the lack of all-star berths for other top defensive defensemen (Serge Savard being the most prominent example). Howell played in the all-star game 7 times, which is very impressive consider he was on a weak team his entire career (and the format usually pitted the defending Cup champions versus the best of the rest).
Howe on the road
Obviously Howe is a dangerous scorer, but all of my lines are solid defensively. Even if you play Howe against my bottom lines at home, he'd need to face a strong, tough, Selke-winning centre (Murray), an aggressive, pesky grinder great at winning battles for pucks along the boards (Shack), and the defensive consciousness of his biggest opponent's top line (Bonin).
Hajt was described as "a classic defenseman - a complete throwback to the old days of hockey when a defenseman lived up to his name and focused primarily on defense and rarely pursued opportunities to score goals... he would routinely and usually flawlessly steer people wide and out of scoring position. He would then tie them up and kick the puck to a teammate who would clear the zone. They key to his game was perfect positioning and making the safest play possible in order to clear the zone." Barilko was a tough, aggressive hitter and was a good defensive player who's familiar playing in front of Broda. It's not an ideal match to have my third pair against Howe, but their combination of toughness, strength and steady positional play should help contain Howe on the road.
I know Howe didn't fight much, but he was very vicious with elbows and slashes. We'll see if the refs call those or not.
Forecheck
I agree that Seattle has an plaexcellent forecheck, but Montreal is well-equipped to handle this for several reasons.
My players are very durable. Howell (1,400+ GP) retired as the NHL's all-time leader in defensemen GP; Marcel Pronovost played over 1,200 games in the era of 70-game schedules; Denis Potvin and Rob Ramage both played over 1,000 games; Bill Hajt lasted 854. Martin played over 1,100 games, Jarvis has the record for most consecutive games and Eddie Shack also lasted over 1,000 games. My defensemen and defensive forwards are among the healthiest and most durable in the draft and are not likely to wear down from physical play.
Second, my defensemen are tough and physical. I don't suppose much needs to be said about Potvin's checking, but Pronovost was known as a particularly nasty, aggressive hitter. Barilko was one of the top hitters of his era during his all-too-brief career, and Ramage was a big checker before he lost his speed late in his career. Even Howell and Hajt were fairly strong and could take checks. I think your team would be more effective against a more injure-prone, less physical group of blueliners, because mine are unlikely to tire or slow down under pressure.
Finally, my team has an excellent transitional offense. Denis Potvin was one of the greatest offensive blueliners ever, and could use his great acceleration or his breakout passing skills to quickly start a rush. Marcel Pronovost was an aggressive rusher who could quickly bring the puck up the ice. Even my depth defenseman, Lloyd Cook, was a top-ten scorer six times in the PCHA. If your team forechecks too aggressively, they will be prone to giving up a lot of odd-man rushes against. With great speed from Cournoyer, Ratelle and Lalonde, my team is likely to turn a lot of 2-on-2s into odd man rushes anyway.
Westfall vs. Potvin
Playing Westfall against Potvin will leave my forward with a lot of room to maneuver. Kasper is a good defensive player, but I doubt he can shut down a three-time NHL scoring champ like Newsy Lalonde.
(I'll concede that he was fairly effective against Gretzky, but Lalonde, an aggressive player, should be able to better withstand Kasper's being a pest). Mike McPhee is a generic third-liner and won't be able to keep up with Cournoyer's speed or moves.
(Just noticed that the votes are due tomorrow night so I might not get another chance to respond. It's been a fun discussion, everyone. Win or lose, I'll be back for more debates in the next round).
Hooley Smith out of positon
Smith was better as a centre, but he was still clearly an all-star calibre player at RW. He was a Hart finalist as a RW in 1926, and finished in the top ten in assists twice at RW. Smith was never an all-star at RW, but that's because all-star teams weren't voted on until 1931 (he switched to centre in 1932).
Stuart leaving the IHL
I don't blame Stuart for not wanting to get killed, but he handled situation very poorly. Literally walking away from your team, and secretly taking a night train out of town, is (at the very least) unprofessional and (at worst) selling your team out for personal greed.
Again, Stuart's own GM said "that the players are happy to be rid of "Mr. contractjumper" and all "his whims." This is not the kind of player I would want on my team.
Kasper/Jarvis
Kasper is a good defensive forward, but I stand by my statement that Jarvis is one of the very best defensive forwards in NHL history. He routinely went head-to-head against the league's best centres (including Trottier, Esposito, Ratelle and Sittler) in the playoffs. Two things are particularly impressive about Jarvis: first, he holds the all-time record for most consecutive games (964), showing that he was willing and able take on difficult assignments each game. Two, he always stayed out of the box (career-high of 34 PIM--Kasper has broke that 6 times), so he'll always be available on the PK. Jarvis placed in the top ten in Selke voting six times in nine years. (And, for the record, I think that Westfall is the best defensive forward on your team).
Howell
Howell was a Norris candidate twice and was Hart finalist in 1967, so that certainly gives him a higher peak than White (though I don't know why you compared the two of them, as White was in the prime of his career and Howell was recuperating from back surgery by the early 1970s). There's traditionally been a bias against defensive players in Norris voting, which could explain the lack of all-star berths for other top defensive defensemen (Serge Savard being the most prominent example). Howell played in the all-star game 7 times, which is very impressive consider he was on a weak team his entire career (and the format usually pitted the defending Cup champions versus the best of the rest).
Howe on the road
Obviously Howe is a dangerous scorer, but all of my lines are solid defensively. Even if you play Howe against my bottom lines at home, he'd need to face a strong, tough, Selke-winning centre (Murray), an aggressive, pesky grinder great at winning battles for pucks along the boards (Shack), and the defensive consciousness of his biggest opponent's top line (Bonin).
Hajt was described as "a classic defenseman - a complete throwback to the old days of hockey when a defenseman lived up to his name and focused primarily on defense and rarely pursued opportunities to score goals... he would routinely and usually flawlessly steer people wide and out of scoring position. He would then tie them up and kick the puck to a teammate who would clear the zone. They key to his game was perfect positioning and making the safest play possible in order to clear the zone." Barilko was a tough, aggressive hitter and was a good defensive player who's familiar playing in front of Broda. It's not an ideal match to have my third pair against Howe, but their combination of toughness, strength and steady positional play should help contain Howe on the road.
I know Howe didn't fight much, but he was very vicious with elbows and slashes. We'll see if the refs call those or not.
Forecheck
I agree that Seattle has an plaexcellent forecheck, but Montreal is well-equipped to handle this for several reasons.
My players are very durable. Howell (1,400+ GP) retired as the NHL's all-time leader in defensemen GP; Marcel Pronovost played over 1,200 games in the era of 70-game schedules; Denis Potvin and Rob Ramage both played over 1,000 games; Bill Hajt lasted 854. Martin played over 1,100 games, Jarvis has the record for most consecutive games and Eddie Shack also lasted over 1,000 games. My defensemen and defensive forwards are among the healthiest and most durable in the draft and are not likely to wear down from physical play.
Second, my defensemen are tough and physical. I don't suppose much needs to be said about Potvin's checking, but Pronovost was known as a particularly nasty, aggressive hitter. Barilko was one of the top hitters of his era during his all-too-brief career, and Ramage was a big checker before he lost his speed late in his career. Even Howell and Hajt were fairly strong and could take checks. I think your team would be more effective against a more injure-prone, less physical group of blueliners, because mine are unlikely to tire or slow down under pressure.
Finally, my team has an excellent transitional offense. Denis Potvin was one of the greatest offensive blueliners ever, and could use his great acceleration or his breakout passing skills to quickly start a rush. Marcel Pronovost was an aggressive rusher who could quickly bring the puck up the ice. Even my depth defenseman, Lloyd Cook, was a top-ten scorer six times in the PCHA. If your team forechecks too aggressively, they will be prone to giving up a lot of odd-man rushes against. With great speed from Cournoyer, Ratelle and Lalonde, my team is likely to turn a lot of 2-on-2s into odd man rushes anyway.
Westfall vs. Potvin
Playing Westfall against Potvin will leave my forward with a lot of room to maneuver. Kasper is a good defensive player, but I doubt he can shut down a three-time NHL scoring champ like Newsy Lalonde.
(I'll concede that he was fairly effective against Gretzky, but Lalonde, an aggressive player, should be able to better withstand Kasper's being a pest). Mike McPhee is a generic third-liner and won't be able to keep up with Cournoyer's speed or moves.
i wouldn't say ratelle made hadfield a 50 goal scorer. in their 13 seasons together with the rangers, hadfield had 1 season above 28 goals. (although they probably didn't play together every season.)
i would agree ratelle's peak is better, while barry was consistently at a high level, but never clearly the best.
i think scoring at roughly the same rate as busher jackson, nels stewart and bill cook in the regular season, and keeping that scoring pace in the playoffs, which no one else at the time i know of could do, makes barry close to ratelle.
i think foyston has a clear advantage in offense over smith. foyston was clearly an elite offensive player, while smith was not.
2 goal scoring titles, perennial AS, plus an MVP.
even if his play in the PCHA isn't convincing, he proved he could score at an elite level against the NHA/NHL in 3 stanley cup series. (27 points in 14 games against the best teams)
foyston even outscored lalonde during their 2 finals series.
i would say northcott is probably a significantly better backchecker than hadfield. he was a 2 way forward, there for his grit and defense as much as for his offense.
i would agree smith was probably good enough to be an AS at RW, although hart finalist at the time doesn't mean AS (see hitchman).
i don't think smith is a great option for 2nd scorer on a scoring line. his playoff scoring is actually below all 3 of our 2nd liners.
i also think his violent, undisciplined play is a problem. getting suspended for 1 month in the '20s is a red flag. shore was suspended 16 games for nearly killing ace bailey. smith was a hothead who likely took bad penalties. we will be exploiting that.
it was obviously not greed, since stuart took less money to leave the IHL.
after he left, he wrote an article in a montreal paper (such was his fame) where he explained himself, and said he would no longer play in the IHL for any amount of money.
handling the situation poorly is not a concern. it's fairly likely that his wife didn't want him dead and convinced him to leave. if acting unprofessionally one time when he thought his life was in danger is his biggest problem, that's excellent.
obviously, you want to make an issue of it, but he dealt with brutality wherever he played (and probably worse than almost all players in the draft), but didn't let it stop him from being maybe the best player of his time.
OK, but if you're the kind of GM who routinely lets his best player get beaten unconscious with sticks, i really doubt you'd be able to get any of the players you want anyway.
i think westfall is the best of both teams. jarvis is certainly very good, and better than kasper, but i don't have as high an opinion of him as you. i actually think marcotte is better.
i wasn't referring to howell in the early '70s.
in the '60s, when you say he was the best defensive d-man in the NHL, he made the AS team once.
howell scored about as much as stanley, brewer, horton and vasko, all of which made the AS team more than once during howell's prime. i'm not seeing best defensive d-man from that.
howell made the AS team in his big offensive season, when he was 3rd in d-man scoring, behind pilote and orr. (rookie orr had 1 more point.)
despite suffering from the bias against defensive players, white was 3rd in norris 3 times, (always behind orr and either park or lapointe). maybe he was especially great defensively?
savard had already won the conn smythe by the time white made the AS team for the first time. white was also canada's top defensive d-man in the '72 series, so he was probably better than savard defensively (at least at the time).
this is a concern, but we will still forecheck aggressively. we don't think conservative play is the best strategy. we are the underdogs, and must take our chances. we will avoid dumping into potvin's side.
stuart and white will be our 1st pair for this series. stuart has the speed and defensive awareness to defend lalonde and cournoyer.
we will try to get stuart and white out against lalonde as much as possible.
they are also important in guarding against counterattacks from our forecheck.
as far as i know, pronovost was a bit slow, and wouldn't be bringing the puck up ice quickly.
i don't think we will suffer to much from westfall covering potvin.
simmer and hadfield are not the kind of players who need elite shadows like westfall. they will be near the net, not needing a lot of room to maneuver, and are the responsibility of the D.
ratelle and cournoyer, will be mostly covered by kasper, leswick and northcott or ullman and conacher, all of whom have the speed and defensive awareness (at least the first 4 do) to be effective.
we think potvin is more dangerous than everyone but lalonde, so we think it's worth it.
mcphee isn't on the 3rd line, i need to have that changed.
3rd line is
leswick--kasper--westfall
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
GDT: #CauseWinning: Canes @ Rongos Game 2 ("7pm" on ESPN)- Latest: The Faulker 27
-
Upcoming events
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 26Staked: $37,512.00Event 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: 12Staked: $21,728.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
