ATD#8 Jim Robson Semi-Final: #2 Halifax RCAF vs. #4 New York Raiders

[VanIslander]

The Jim Robson division:

Second Round Match-Up



Halifax RCAF

Coach: Tommy Ivan
Captain: George Armstrong
Alternates: Ray Bourque, Max Bentley

Doug Bentley - Max Bentley - Cam Neely
Dennis Hull - Buddy O'Connor - Dave Taylor
Esa Tikkanen - Keith Primeau - George Armstrong
Kirk Maltby - Doug Risebrough - Bobby Schmautz
Craig Simpson

Ray Bourque - Allan Stanley
Ted Green - Gus Mortson
Wally Stanowski - Jamie Macoun
Bob Dailey
Normand Rochefort

Johnny Bower
Hugh Lehman



vs.



New York Raiders

Coach: Fred Shero
Captain: Scott Stevens
Alternates: Doug Gilmour, Rod Brind'amour

Rod Brind'Amour - Eric Lindros - Dino Ciccarelli
Dave Andreychuk - Doug Gilmour - Mike Foligno
J. P. Parise - Don Luce - John McKenzie
Steve Vickers - Ivan Hlinka - Vladimir Martinec
John Ogrodnick, Ziggy Palffy

Guy Lapointe - Scott Stevens
Bill Gadsby - Joe Watson
Charlie Huddy - Alexander Gusev
Marty McSorley

Dominik Hasek
Pete Peeters​

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Halifax RCAF

PP1: D. Bentley - O'Connor - Neely - M. Bentley - Bourque
PP2: D. Hull - Primeau - Taylor - Stanowski - Stanley

PK1: Armstrong - D.Bentley - Bourque - Mortson
PK2: Taylor - Tikkanen - Stanley - Stanowski

vs.

New York Raiders

PP1: Brind'amour - Lindros - Ciccarelli - Lapointe - Gadsby
PP2: Andreychuk - Gilmour - Martinec - Stevens - Huddy

PK1: Luce - Gilmour - Stevens - Gadsby
PK2: Brind'amour - Parise - Lapointe - Watson

 

[VanIslander]

Facing a better first line and a better number one defenseman, the Raiders have made some line-up adjustments:

(a) two-time Selke-winning Brind'amour moves to first line left wing where he played well in his Flyers days, and will be iced whenever possible against Cam Neely (LW vs. RW on the same side of the rink) with Stevens and Lindros also out there against that Bentley line;

(b) 6'2 Hlinka, too talented to sit out the playoffs, is re-united with Martinec, his three-time world championship teammate, on a secondary scoring line to move the puck against the opponents' second and third defensive (non-Bourque) pairings;

(c) Foligno moves onto the Gilmour line and brings a heavy shot, toughness, Bowman-trained defensive ability and nasty PIM to the second line right wing, to take on Tikkanen when necessary, which could be often given the playoff grit of The Grate One;

(d) Longtime Shero-Flyer Watson moves to the second pairing (as another atd g.m. recommended before) to be a stay-at-home crease-clearing, shot-blocking, heart and soul addition to allow Gadsby more latitude to join the rush in transition;

(e) Two-way Don Luce moves up to the third line as his shadowing and face-off ability will come in handy; he is joined on the line by boards-banging "Jeep" Parise and traffic-happy pest "Pie" McKenzie;

(f) the third blueline pairing of Huddy-Gusev is expected not to play alot given the team's top-3 blueliners likeliness of being doubleshifted as per typical in the playoffs, 25+ minutes per game, leaving little for the third pairing but when they do get ice time, Huddy-Gusev will play with the Czech duo. Both defensemen can rush and hit and have a slapshot but their smart positional play and passing skills are to be more utilized in this series to support the fourth line's scoring and play the puck more than the body, where possible;

(g) Ogrodnick is benched as, while he averaged 40 goals a year over a six year span, proving he can score, he has limited playoff experience, certainly never been in many big-game situations, isn't Shero-kind-of-physical or defensively-renowned, nor - most importantly - fits on the lines given the adjustments that have been made.

 

[God Bless Canada]

If nothing else, this series might set the draft record for the most talk. (As well as the most long-winded posts). Best of luck to VanIslander and the Raiders in this series.

Our full (and adjusted) special teams units, as well as our last minute when leading and trailing units. (More insight to come later).

Power Play Units:
PP1: D. Bentley-O'Connor-Neely-M. Bentley-Bourque
PP2: D. Hull-Primeau-Taylor-Stanowski-Stanley

Penalty Killing Units:
Forwards:
PK1: Armstrong-D.Bentley
PK2: Taylor-Tikkanen
PK3: Schmautz-Primeau
PK4: Maltby-Risebrough
Defence:
PK1: Bourque-Mortson
PK2: Stanley-Stanowski
PK3: Green-Macoun

Last minute when trailing:
D. Bentley-M. Bentley-Neely-O'Connor-Bourque-Stanowski

Last minutes when leading:
D. Bentley-Primeau-Tikkanen-Bourque-Stanley

 

[MXD]

I think the outcome of this playoff might be determined by line match-ups....

 

[God Bless Canada]

One aspect that I love about this series is that these teams might be the two best in the draft in terms of being built around their coach. VanI knew who he wanted for a coach from the outset. He built a team to suit that coach. And it's been successful. So far. They're tough, they're physical. They don't have a lot of egos.

But Halifax is also built perfectly for their coach. They're excellent defensively, and they're loaded with good two-way players. Halifax is the perfect team for Ivan's coaching style. Unlike many of his contemporaries - Day, Ivan, Imlach and Adams - Ivan wasn't a screamer. He didn't use intimidation as a means of motivation. And he was an excellent strategist.

And, Halifax has the perfect team for their goalie. A couple key players (No. 2 defenceman Stanley and captain Armstrong) are very familiar with Johnny Bower. We believe we've assimilated a team reminiscent of the 60s Leafs that won four Cups in front of Bower - a rock-solid defensive team that has good offensive ability and can win a 4-3 type of game.

We're going to try to get the Primeau line out there against the Lindros line as much as possible. Primeau was the best defensive forward in the league before the concussion problems set in. He was big, strong, quick, physical and terrific in his own zone. Tikkanen will be able to neutralize Ciccarrelli (he shadowed better in the playoffs, and still posted a point-per-game in the post-season) and I like the Armstrong-Brind'Amour match-up. Armstrong was exceptional defensively, who used his positioning and hockey sense to full advantage. He was also ferocious in the corners, and scored at nearly a point-per-game in the playoffs from 62-64.

We want Risebrough's line out there against Gilmour's line as much as possible. Gilmour is a heck of a player - I think he's VanI's most dangerous offensive player in the series. Risebrough has the speed and defensive game to keep pace with Gilmour. Gilmour's a great playoff player, but he can be stopped. Johnny MacIntyre did it for the Canucks in 1994. Schmautz and Maltby should be able to handle Andreychuk and Foligno. Andreychuk has a considerable size advantage on Schmautz, but Schmautz was an excellent skater, he was double-tough and he was very reliable in his own zone.

Some might doubt Max Bentley's ability to get it done offensively against Scott Stevens. Bentley was an elite scorer in the later 40s and early 50s - the toughest era to score since the league implemented the forward pass. At a time when nobody put up a point-per-game in the playoffs, Mad Max had 46 points in 51 playoff games, including 33 points in 31 games for the Leafs in their Cup wins in 48, 49 and 51. As for putting up points when Stevens is on the ice, Bentley put up points in series against guys like Black Jack Stewart and Butch Bouchard. I'd say those are two of the top 10 defensive defencemen ever, rock-solid guys who could kill you with physical play or defensive zone play.

The Bentley-Bentley-Neely line has been listed as the best in the draft by two GMs, and it was on the shortlist of a third. With the Richard-Richard-Moore line gone, our top line might be the best remaining. (Along with Hull-Boucher-Nedomansky). Neely was a force in the playoffs. The Bruins didn't beat the Habs in the playoffs for 39 years before Neely arrived, and they haven't beat the Habs in the playoffs since Neely retired. Not a coincidence. Some have questioned Doug Bentley's playoff record, but I would rate it at the same level as Bill Gadsby's: incomplete. He was saddled by awful teams at his peak.

We don't have a shutdown pairing. We have three. All three of our defensive pairings can shut you down. The beauty of Bourque isn't just that he's one of the best offensive defencemen of all-time, he's one of the best defensive ever. He was widely considered the best defensive defenceman in the league in the late 80s and early 90s. The Bourque-Stanley pairing has a lot of similarities to the Lidstrom-Murphy duo that stymied Lindros in the 97 Cup final.

Mortson-Green is one of the toughest duos in the draft. Stanowski's an excellent blend of speed, toughness and creativity. Macoun is a defensive rock who can be dirty when he wants.

VanI has a very tough team up front, and a very aggressive team. But they won't be able to intimidate Halifax's defence through the forecheck.

I love VanI's defence. Bourque's the best defenceman in this series, and the only defenceman in the series who rates among the top 10 all-time. But Stevens and Gadsby are top 20 all-time, and Lapointe's good enough to be a No. 1.

I have doubts about Watson as a regular defenceman in this draft. Love the guy. Love his leadership and work ethic. But even in a 28-team draft, he's best suited to being a spare defenceman, especially with his leadership and locker room presence. (We were ready to pick him in the final round as our No. 8).

In the regular season, VanI would have a definite edge in net. Bower would have more all-star team births if it weren't for the competition - Sawchuk, Hall and Plante. Hasek's probably the best regular season goalie ever. But the gap closes in the playoffs. Bower's playoff performance elevates his ranking on most lists. Hasek's playoff record is a roller coaster. He's had excellent playoffs (1998, 1999, even 1994. 2002 wasn't his best playoff, but the bottom line is he won). He also had some playoffs in which he struggled, and even became a distraction.

VanI said in the last series that special teams would be the difference. We believe we have the best penalty killing in the draft. Four forward duos that can kill penalties. And all six of our defencemen are excellent penalty killers. Normand Rochefort is waitiing in the wings, too.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This will be a long, hard-fought series. There will be lots of low-scoring games, but there should be some excellent goaltending and big hits.

I've said before that Hasek probably had the greatest prime out of any goalie in NHL history, playing behind Alexei Zhitnik and Jason Wolley for 25 minutes a night. It's mind-boggling to think about what he could do behind Stevens, Gadsby and Lapointe. With that said, I don't think there's all that much separating him from Bower during the playoffs. The China Wall is in his ideal environment, with a familiar coach and captain, protected by a strong defensive blueline.

I think MXD is right, match-ups will be key here. The matchup involving GBC's top line is particularly interesting. On the one hand, the Bentley brothers could get worn down by the Raiders' relentless forecheck. (The criticism isn't that they're small, it's that they're non-physical, though the point about them playing during a very violent era indicates that they can take or avoid a beating). New York has the ability to send four lines of aggressive forecheckers, which could fatigue the best line in this series. On the other hand, the Bentleys both possess explosive speed and the Raiders might be vulnerable to odd-man rushes against. (Bourque and Stanowski were both excellent rushers as well).

The Raiders have a devastating powerplay. Lapointe's exceptional slapshot, combined with one of Andreychuk or Ciccarelli planting themselves in the crease, could throw Bower off his game. With that said, the RCAF is a very disciplined team and likely won't spend much time in the box.

New York clearly has a big advantage with its top three defensemen, though I prefer Halifax's bottom three. Stanowski was a better rusher than Huddy and also brings ample playoff experience; Green is similar to Watson but tougher; though I would take Gusev over Macoun.

I don't expect much scoring from either second line; both lines have centres with short but brilliant peaks and hardnosed but unspectacular wingers.

 

[raleh]

Honestly, in this series I think we have the advantage everywhere except goal tending. We have the better scoring line, the better checking line(s), and more defensive depth. We also have the most dangerous offensive weapon in the series in Max Bentley, and the best single D-man in Bourque. Coaching is probably a wash because both teams are perfect for their coach. Special teams probably won't be a huge factor in this series, although if it is I'm confident. Especially since New York's biggest advantage is their power play and our PK is definitely better than their PP. I disagree slightly with GBC when he says Gilmour is New York's biggest offensive weapon. To me that distinction goes to Lindros, who I believe will be rendered useless by Primeau's line and Bourque and Stanley. Riser should have a lot less trouble with Gilmour and the second line than any of Van's lines will have against the Bentley's and Neely. The Bentley's thrived in the most defensive era in hockey history, there's no reason for them to have too much trouble figuring out Stevens-who I think is New York's most dangerous defensive weapon.

All in all, this is a series I would love to watch and regardless of which team I'd be CHEERING for , I would be shocked to see Halifax lose.

 

[pitseleh]

I'm disappointed by the lack of talk in this series.

I think Cam Neely will be fundamental in Halifax being able to defeat New York. He'll hopefully create room for the Bentleys so that they can work their magic together.

New York will need Lapointe and Gadsby to step up offensively to support their offense. Bourque is the best defenseman in the series, so New York will need their defense to stand up by committee.

New York will also need to rely on their advantages on their second and fourth lines offensively to mitigate the significant advantage that Halifax has on their top line.

 

[vancityluongo]

I'm disappointed by the lack of talk in this series.

Agreed completely.

I think a big factor for deciding the winner (well, for me at least) is how tired each team is after the first round. Yeah, both teams went to at least 6 games, but from the sounds of it, Portage-NY was a war, while Halifax was the clear better team in their series. So do Halifax have a advantage right off the bat?

Should be a gritty low scoring series, but like I also think because of the style of game both teams play, there may be a couple injuries...

 

[raleh]

Agreed completely.

I think a big factor for deciding the winner (well, for me at least) is how tired each team is after the first round. Yeah, both teams went to at least 6 games, but from the sounds of it, Portage-NY was a war, while Halifax was the clear better team in their series. So do Halifax have a advantage right off the bat?

Should be a gritty low scoring series, but like I also think because of the style of game both teams play, there may be a couple injuries...

There IS a fair amount of injury prone players in this series as well.

 

[MXD]

...The matchup between two teams I had much lower than their final rank for the regular season, even though I called Halifax something of a playoff squad, a team that would do better in matchups than in regular season.

 

[vancityluongo]

There IS a fair amount of injury prone players in this series as well.

Having Bourque and Stevens in the series definitely won't help Keith Primeau or Eric Lindros much, that's for sure.

 

[VanIslander]

There are 1 or 2 series this round that clearly have a winner and this ain't one of them.

I think Cam Neely will be fundamental in Halifax being able to defeat New York. He'll hopefully create room for the Bentleys so that they can work their magic together.

For the games in NY, Neely and the Bents will face a lot of Brind'amour, Lindros, Stevens. The RCAF first line will have a hard time checking the Raider top line, and Bourque won't be out there on NY's offensive face-offs in NYC with last line change going to the home team. But Halifax is the higher seed and has a one-game, home ice advantage in this regard, to get their desired match-ups up to four games of the series.

New York will need Lapointe and Gadsby to step up offensively to support their offense. Bourque is the best defenseman in the series, so New York will need their defense to stand up by committee.

Raymond does almost everything with sublime excellence, but the one thing he wasn't gifted with was an ability to clear the crease of big, strong guys, though he could tie up their sticks pretty good. Kuddos to the co-g.m.s of Halifax for putting "Snowshoes" on the top pairing with him to stay at home on that pairing.

The Raiders top pairing is just about as effective overall as a pairing, and the Big-3 defensemen will always be out there on the ice. Not only Lapointe and Gadsby surging and shooting the puck on net, but also a young Scott Stevens, who was offensive, recording nine seasons of double digit goal scoring on a decent shot, his last good offensive season he scored 18 goals, 78 points in 1994, thereafter we remember more of his defensive, physical exploits, but his 1000+ NHL points was no fluke, he had skill with the puck. All four of the Raider powerplay blueliners are good at moving the puck with a decent shot on net, with plenty of screens, deflections and rebounds expected. Bower's pokecheck won't be as effective against a team that doesn't dipsy doodle down low as much as crash the net; Johnny will have to try and control the rebounds, though he seemed to thrive on knocking pucks away,to the corners and boards, where Raiders like to play.

New York will also need to rely on their advantages on their second and fourth lines offensively to mitigate the significant advantage that Halifax has on their top line.

Yeah, NY's Hlinka-Martinec duo of Czech greats, who three times helped beat great Soviet teams in world championship play and who each were giants in their own country, should weave some magic, and are on a line with Vickers, who has 24 playoff goals in 68 playoff games in the NHL, that's CLUTCH, and who takes abuse around the net, letting the Czechs cycle the puck if they'd like.

"Jeep" Parise on the Raiders third line is also productive when it matters most, with 27 playoff goals in 86 playoff games. That's as good as, and a bit better than Halifax's underwhelming second-line right winger Dave Taylor, who only has 26 playoff goals in 92 playoff games int he high-flying eighties era.

And let's not forget that Halifax will likely get no offense from Primeau, who has a long career of playoff and key game disappointments, whose best playoffs by far was his last one, in which he scored half of all his career playoff goals, having a mere 9 goals in 110 NHL playoff games before that last postseason. What are the odds that that last-playoffs-Primeau wil be the Primeau to play in this series? slim. The Raiders' thrid lice centre, Luce, has a better playoff scoring history - though not as good as linemate Parise - and his face-offs and defensive acumen are renowned. And let's not forget the other Raiders third liner "Pie" MacKenzie, who twice scored 17 playoff points in 14 playoff games, finishing top-4 in postseason scoring on a stanley cup championship Bruins team. He was clutch, in more than one successful playoff run. And he was originator of the MacKenzie choke dance. Halifax's only advantage on the third line is Tikkanen and as I mentioned in my other post, steps are taken to address that and it is a concern.

The Raiders second, third and fourth lines stack up well against the RCAF, the big three on d will have to shine as they should, and Hasek has to steal one game in Halifax to counter home ice advantage, to get the desired match-ups: Neely against Brind'amour with Stevens and Lindros in support as well looking to finish checks hard against the Bentleys (Doug was small even for his era and Max Bentley was even more injury-prone than Neely - can their top line handle the physical punishment, the Shero-emphasized hard finishing of every check? Halifax is one injury away from losing their ability to excel), Foligno against Tikkanen to neutralize the superpest, with McSorley iced for a couple of games if Esa needs some serious cheapshots, Hlinka-Martinec out against non-Bourque pairings.

The Raiders have a devastating powerplay. Lapointe's exceptional slapshot, combined with one of Andreychuk or Ciccarelli planting themselves in the crease, could throw Bower off his game. With that said, the RCAF is a very disciplined team and likely won't spend much time in the box.

Dino drawing penalties in the crease from the two 1000+ PIM Halifax blueliners of Green-Mortson on their second pairing, or from the 1000+ PIM of Macoun on their third pairing. "Pie" MacKenzie was also a pest, and a going-to-the-net Lindros, Gilmour, Foligno, Vickers, Parise should draw some crosschecks and tripping calls from the three Halifax defenders.

Portage-NY was a war, while Halifax was the clear better team in their series. So do Halifax have a advantage right off the bat?

A Shero-type team enters the playoffs expecting and thriving on bruises and blood. There is no weariness coming off of the Portage series - in fact - there should be an extra gear of physicality that the Bentleys of the RCAF will face immediately. Game one will be like game seven. Fatigue would only become a factor later in the series, if at all.

 

[VanIslander]

I'm goin' on a trip and so will be away until Sunday night. I don't have a co-g.m. to watch my back while I'm away so I'll rely on g.m.s at large to step in on my behalf if/when you see a counterpoint to be made.

Have a good weekend guys!

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think the bottom line with this series is the Raiders won't be able to score enough to win this series. Between Halifax's coaching, goaltending, blue-line, two-way line, momentum line, and overall team defence - combined with the lack of an offensive punch on the Raiders - the Raiders won't be able to get the offensive output.

The two best offensive players (Max and Doug Bentley) are on Halifax. The two best offensive wingers (Doug Bentley and Neely) are on Halifax. And Halifax has Ray Bourque's offensive ability, too. We won't be winning 6-1 or 7-2, but we will be able to win 3-1, 4-1 (with an empty net goal).

New York has the potential for a potent power play, but as I've said from the start: we have the best penalty killing in the draft. We have six defencemen who can be penalty killing aces. Mortson and Green will be excellent at clearing the front of the net, and if need be, we can bring Dailey in to clear the front of the net, too. And we have four penalty killing units. Guys like Tikkanen and Doug Bentley, who played very well at centre, become even more valuable.

The ability of the Bentley's to survive won't be an issue. They played in the toughest stretch in league history. And they thrived. And they were able to stay healthy. Especially Max. Memo to all GMs: Max Bentley was not injury prone. During his eight-year peak, he missed 12 games. He put up points in the playoffs playing against some of the roughest, toughest and best defensive defencemen ever - Butch Bouchard and Black Jack Stewart, for example. As for Neely's health, he didn't miss a playoff game from 1987 to 1991.

Mortson was a fighter and a hitter. He wasn't a clutch and grab type, or a stickwork type. He was very mobile, and he'll have no problem keeping up with the New York forwards, or cleanly dislodging them from the puck.

VanI said that Macoun finished with over 1,000 PIMs for his career. That's half the story. The other half is that Macoun had nearly as many games played as PIMs. He topped 100 PIMs in a season twice. He could be dirty, but he was rock-solid defensively, with excellent positioning.

In Halifax, the Primeau line will be out against the Lindros line, and the Risebrough line will face the Gilmour line. If VanI wants to tempt fate with the Lindros line against the Bentleys, go for it. Lindros and Ciccarelli were physical, but don't confuse that with being strong defensively. Ciccarrelli and Lindros were not good enough defensively to play a shut down role against the Bentley's. The Bentley's will enjoy that match-up. The Bentley's have the smarts and speed to get past those two.

27 goals in 86 playoff games isn't that impressive. I'm a big JP Parise fan, but he's not going to get you much more than a couple points in a seven-game series in an ATD against a team like Halifax.

I think VanI is underestimating the abilities of George Armstrong. If he thinks our only advantage is Tikkanen, he's sorely mistaken. Armstrong had 34 points in 36 games for the Leafs in the playoffs from 62 to 64. That's playing in the Original 6. Against an HHOF goalie each night. Against teams loaded with HHOFers each night. And on a team that always played defence first. That's terrific.

Bobby Schmautz was also very productive in the playoffs - he scored at nearly a point-per-game pace in the post-season during his six-year peak.

No line-up changes as of yet. We're going to start with the guys who got us here. If Taylor or Hull falters, that's when we'll bring in Craig Simpson - exactly the type of player who would cause fits for Hasek - a talented grinding forward with good size who crashes the net and effectively tips the puck.

And whether VanI wants to admit it or not, fatigue is a factor. You had the toughest series of the first round. And now you're going to face another tough team?

 

[Jungosi]

First off , I'd pay alot of money to see this series. Prime Lindros vs. prime Neely , what a dandy!

I really like you team GBC. Reuniting the Bentleys ,your third line is pure dynamite and your fourth strong too.What bugs me about your second line is that both Dennis Hull and Buddy O'Connor had one great offence season but only played solid in their other years. Your defense is strong and has a top-5 man in Bourque , plus they are playing in front of a top-10 goalie. Except for strong secondary scoring I don't see any big weakness.

New York has maybe the most intimidating D in this Draft. I would think twice before I cross the blueline. And if you sourvive Stevens and Gadsby you still have to face the Dominator. Neely might be a bit in danger here because of Stevens. I agree with GBC on New York's scoring , it isn't enough to win the series. The powerplay is great but in think Halifax can contain it with their strong PK.

Halifax wins if :

-Bentley - Bentley - Neely is scoring enough
-They stop New York's powerplay
-They don't get intimidated
-Contain the physical abuse

New York wins if :

-Hasek in standing on his head
-They wear down their opponent
-There powerplay is clicking
-They shut-down the first line

 

[God Bless Canada]

O'Connor had a couple of good offensive seasons during the war years early in his career. And he was one of a select few to have a point-per-game season from 46-47 to 53-54. It's incredible how tough it was to get a point-per-game in that era.

He was involved in a car accident in 48-49, and was never the same player. Yet he was still the Rangers top scorer that year.

He had good talent around him in New York, but not a top-end talented winger like a Doug Bentley, Roy Conacher or Toe Blake.

I think Neely's injury problems are overrated. Most of his injury problems stemmed from one knee in the 1991 playoffs. He didn't miss a playoff game from 1987 to 1991. And he faced some pretty physical defencemen in the East in those years. (Including Stevens in the 1990 Eastern Conference Final).

 

[Jungosi]

Well , I didn't knew about the car accident. I did some research on him ,you might be right that I'm underrating him a bit , before he played for the Rangers , he was with the Habs.I doubt he did get mouch ice time there. I'm still not a fan of players with one or two all-star seasons and 10 above average seasons.

Btw :While looking through the 46-47 Habs , I found Billy Reay who had quite a season that year. Does anyone know more about him?

 

[Sturminator]

I don't expect much scoring from either second line; both lines have centres with short but brilliant peaks and hardnosed but unspectacular wingers.

While neither second line is spectacular, Killer is better than O'Connor by a fairly large margin. He may not score a huge number of points playing between Foligno and Andreychuk, but he'll provide high level checking and grit in addition to the offense. It's all matchup-dependent, of course, but I think New York's 2nd line is pretty clearly the better overall unit.

- this series is a real contrast of styles. As has been mentioned previously, Halifax's ability to keep the top line healthy and productive may be the key to the whole series, though in my opinion Neely is the only major injury question on the line. Doug Bentley wasn't big, but I don't question his ability to stay healthy. Max was known as a bit of a hypochondriac, though until his back injury in 53-54, he never seemed to miss more than about ten games/season and always rung the bell in the playoffs. So I don't really think Max is much of an injury concern.

Neely, on the other hand, is a different animal. By talent, Cam should have probably had a 2nd round ATD career. The guy was an absolute beast when he was at his best, but he rarely was. If I was the GM relying of Neely to make room on my top line, I'd be pretty nervous about facing a team like the Raiders this early in the playoffs. Even if Halifax gets through this round, going out against the likes of Stevens, Gadsby, Lindros, Gilmour, et al may take its toll on Cam's body.

 

[Sturminator]

I think Neely's injury problems are overrated. Most of his injury problems stemmed from one knee in the 1991 playoffs. He didn't miss a playoff game from 1987 to 1991. And he faced some pretty physical defencemen in the East in those years. (Including Stevens in the 1990 Eastern Conference Final).

Neely's injury problems are absolutely not overrated. The problem with Cam's career is that he didn't really begin peaking until 1989 and then, snap!, he's got basically a career-ending injury in 1991. He came back one more year and played frighteningly well in his 49 games in 93-94 (his fifty in fifty year), but that's basically it. People pick on Tim Kerr for having a short peak, but Neely's really got a 2 1/2 season peak, because before 1989 he was merely "very good", but nothing close to ATD 1st line good.

To be honest, I think Neely is one of the most overvalued players in the draft and I wonder if he's really a deserving Hall of Famer. I know that's a pretty extreme opinion, but seriously...was Neely good enough in the blink of an eye we call his peak to justify induction when guys like J.C. Tremblay, Mark Howe, Cecil Dillon and Carl Brewer are still on the outside looking in? Neely's peak was fantastic (really, he was a great, great player when healthy), and he's certainly worthy of a 4th round pick if you can keep him healthy, but this is a nightmare matchup for Halifax. In the Foster Hewitt, you might be able to sneak Neely into the Conference Finals still in one piece and then shoot enough cortizone in him to keep him moving through the finals, but this is the second round and Scott Stevens is the last guy you want to see on the ice at this point in the playoffs if you're Neely's owner.

 

[VanIslander]

Raining here in South Korea. Golf is called off.

I think the bottom line with this series is the Raiders won't be able to score enough to win this series.

Actually, I think it's YOUR team that will have more trouble scoring as you rely on ONE line mostly, so if the Raiders can stop or contain that line, then that's the series.

The Raiders have more depth of scoring among forward lines AND blueline pairings!

The two best offensive players (Max and Doug Bentley) are on Halifax. The two best offensive wingers (Doug Bentley and Neely) are on Halifax. And Halifax has Ray Bourque's offensive ability, too. We won't be winning 6-1 or 7-2, but we will be able to win 3-1, 4-1 (with an empty net goal).

Your top-5 unit of your 1st line and 1st defensive pairing of Bourque will get a goal a game, and maybe two, but will your team score 3 or 4 against New York's team defense? No. The Halifax second line is underwhelming, third line centre should be your fourth because of his lack of playoff scoring, and your fourth line is defensive oriented.

It'll be much easier for NY to stop Halifax's offense in that there is one line to focus on, whereas - in THIS series, it's the Raiders who have scoring depth harder to key on. And part of that depth is on the blueline:

The transition game advantage goes to the Raiders, as after their one offensive defenseman of Bourque, the next best offensive defensemen in the series are Lapointe, Gadsby, Stevens, Huddy, Gusev - all Raiders! That's five skating blueliners with a better ability to rush and pass the puck out of the defensive zone quickly than the second best Halifax blueliner. And there is plenty more playoff experience on the Raiders blueline; Halifax after Bourque much less so.

In Halifax, the Primeau line will be out against the Lindros line, and the Risebrough line will face the Gilmour line.

Your 3rd and 4th lines against my 1st line? That will limit the ice time of your scoring lines on home ice. Re-think that.

If VanI wants to tempt fate with the Lindros line against the Bentleys, go for it. Lindros and Ciccarelli were physical, but don't confuse that with being strong defensively. Ciccarrelli and Lindros were not good enough defensively to play a shut down role against the Bentley's. The Bentley's will enjoy that match-up.

Dino was a superpest so don't expect Doug Bentley to be happy to be prodded, bumped and badmouthed by him. Lindros will finish his checks, which means that after Max passes the puck he'll face some abuse that he won't be so happy about, and if either Bentley decides to carry the puck directly toward the net then Stevens on the top pairing will be there to check the puck carrier, which should wipe a smile or two off your Bentleys faces. lol I suspect the Bentleys will be cycling the puck up high and are greater threats at passing to Bourque at the point than they will be trying to creat a screen, surging toward the net or beating Guy or Scott. Yes, I would TEMPT FATE by placing the Raiders first line against the RCAF's. Brind'amour and Lapointe are unmentioned impact guys in playoff action on the top-5 unit of the raiders, two-way, defensively for sure.

27 goals in 86 playoff games isn't that impressive. I'm a big JP Parise fan, but he's not going to get you much more than a couple points in a seven-game series

Re-read. The point was that my third liner Parise has as good as - and even a bit better - playoff scoring pace as the Halifax second line right wing Dave Taylor, a relatively weak pick.

Another question is: Will the Halifax top line be able to stop the Raiders top line? 73 playoff goals in 141 playoff games for Dino; 24 in 53 Eric; 50 in 141 for Rod, who assists more. Lapointe and Stevens booming shots from the point, strong forwards, the ability of the Bentleys to play defensively will be a factor when the Raiders get their desired match-up.

I think VanI is underestimating the abilities of George Armstrong. If he thinks our only advantage is Tikkanen, he's sorely mistaken. Armstrong had 34 points in 36 games for the Leafs in the playoffs from 62 to 64.

Let's compare your third line rw with mine.

My team's third line right winger scored 39 points in 36 playoff games for a three-year playoff period from 1970-72, two Stanley Cup Bruins teams, 17 points in 14 games in 1970 postseason, tied for third in team goals and points behind Orr and Esposito, and not on Espo's line either. In 1972 he scored 17 points in 14 games. MacKenzie is also ranked in the top-30 all-time in career powerplay points per game played as he had the skill to crash the net, which served Boston well as the opposition's top blueliners took on Esposito, leaving the line with "Pie" to face second and third pairing defensemen. He was also quite the pest and drew a lot of penalties from pissed off and frustrated opposition. A great Shero-type player from a tough championship Bruins team. MacKenzie=Armstrong imo., all things considered, come playoff performance on the ice.

Bobby Schmautz was also very productive in the playoffs - he scored at nearly a point-per-game pace in the post-season during his six-year peak.

26 goals in 70 games over that six year period isn't great but 51 points in 70 playoff games is decent for your fourth liner but it's the same as my fourth liner Vickers, who has 49 playoff points in 68 playoff games.

But unless you are prejudiced against the great Soviets, then the offensive ability of Hlinka and Martinec cannot be denied, and one's judgement of their ability to score a few timely goals could be a factor in assessments of success or failure in a close series. Hlinka is big and strong and Martinec is fast and shifty, both with world class skills that continually burned great Soviet defenses that keyed up specifically on them.

In summary:

- Halifax has Bourque but NY has great depth in offensive support from the blueline
- Halifax has an average playoff second line versus Gilmour and ex-Sabre wingers
- Halifax has a playoff disappearing third line centre in Primeau who won't score in the postseason and won't be a stitch better than NY's Luce defensively, and isn't as good as the Raiders' centre in the face-off circle
- Halifax has Tikkanen and this is the extent of the RCAF's secondary scoring threat as far as the Raiders are concerned

The Raiders would have a harder time against a team with more secondary scoring threat, better third line centre and more offensive defensemen beyond their number one.

Bentley-Bentley-Neely-Bourque of the RCAF first 5-man unit is what the Raiders have to key on defensively, and Brind'amour, Lapointe, Stevens, Hasek are ready for the task, with hits from Lindros and pesty play from Dino. NY doesn't have to stop the top line, just CONTAIN it to a goal or two goals per game.

Tikkanen is the Halifax playoff warrior not on the top line to be dealt with; tough and rough Foligno or pesty MacKenzie will see ice time against him, and the great Gatsby (he retired as the NHL's then all-time assist leader among defensemen) with Gilmour will provide secondary scoring for the Raiders, along with the Czech duo and the third NY pairing. Andreychuk and Vickers will help with screens, deflections and rebounds that the RCAF's Bower will find frustrating.

The Raiders entered the playoffs concerned about teams with more depth of scoring lines, great transition teams due to passing defensemen and great goaltending.

Halifax is a one-line offense team with one offensive defenseman (Bourque has only 41 goals in 214 playoff games so he ain't gonna light the lamp as much as pass). They could use a better second line, a two-way third line centre, another offensive-minded d-man for the second pairing and an entirely new second powerplay unit (Halifax has arguably the weakest second pp unit in the entire draft, from centre to defensemen).

As such, this is not at all an insurmountable series. It'll all depend on how people conceptualize the factors.

It's possible that the three stars might have at least one player who isn't among the early round picks: Tikkanen or Gilmour or Hlinka, Martinec.

 

[VanIslander]

While neither second line is spectacular, Killer is better than O'Connor by a fairly large margin. He may not score a huge number of points playing between Foligno and Andreychuk, but he'll provide high level checking and grit in addition to the offense. It's all matchup-dependent, of course, but I think New York's 2nd line is pretty clearly the better overall unit.

And Bill Gatsby will be on the second pairing, and Shero likes to throw 5-man units out there, so it's likely that a surging Gatsby - who retired the NHL all-time blueline assist leader - will help the Raiders second line develop offense on their transition game.

- this series is a real contrast of styles. As has been mentioned previously, Halifax's ability to keep the top line healthy and productive may be the key to the whole series

Can they be contained to a goal per game average or will they be able to score 3 goals per game?

If I was the GM relying of Neely to make room on my top line, I'd be pretty nervous about facing a team like the Raiders this early in the playoffs. Even if Halifax gets through this round, going out against the likes of Stevens, Gadsby, Lindros, Gilmour, et al may take its toll on Cam's body.

Not to mention Rod the Bod, the two-time defending Selke trophy winner, the one to check him as long as he stays in his lane.

GodBlessCanada & raleh, I respect your judgements in general though I think you, like I, am biased in this series: this is not an ideal match-up for the RCAF; whereas, for the Raiders a greater fear comes with facing either the Tigers or Rangers, teams with multi-line offensive excellence, great transition game depth, two-way third line centre as well as goaltending. Those kinds of teams would be hard to key up on and target defensively for my Shero Raiders. Halifax's top line might be one of the best in the regular season and in general, but Portage's top line of Lindsay-Lach-Pitre was better matched to cause NY trouble in deep.

The Bentley brothers were undersized even for their era and both were Lady Byngs and there's no doubt that - for good or bad - Raiders coach Fred Shero would see to it that they had a target on their jersey and, even if it took a cheapshot from McSorley, that those two are in a bit of trouble playing together on the top line against this team. Here is an interview with one of the biggest apologists for violence in hockey:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4rA7Hr-fzbs
Notice how he conflates sticks with clubs!.. and cites the Soviet incident as an "accident" lol
That pretty much is how it looks like Shero treats hockey: like football with clubs, er, checking the body and stickwork.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Neely didn't miss a playoff game from 1987 to 1991. Included in that were two trips to the Stanley Cup final, and a trip to the Wales Conference Final. In that time, he played 67 games.

His injury problems date back to one incident.

And he didn't start to peak in 1989. He was a second team all-star RW in 1988, and was the Bruins best player in the Adams Division Final against the heavily favoured Montreal Canadiens, as the Bruins knocked off the Canadiens in the playoffs for the first time in 40 years.

Scott Stevens is my all-time favourite player, but don't paint him as this unstoppable monster who injured a player a game. Stevens didn't injure Neely in the 1990 Wales Conference final, or the 1995 Eastern Conference quarter-final.

Neely's injury problems are absolutely not overrated. The problem with Cam's career is that he didn't really begin peaking until 1989 and then, snap!, he's got basically a career-ending injury in 1991. He came back one more year and played frighteningly well in his 49 games in 93-94 (his fifty in fifty year), but that's basically it. People pick on Tim Kerr for having a short peak, but Neely's really got a 2 1/2 season peak, because before 1989 he was merely "very good", but nothing close to ATD 1st line good.

To be honest, I think Neely is one of the most overvalued players in the draft and I wonder if he's really a deserving Hall of Famer. I know that's a pretty extreme opinion, but seriously...was Neely good enough in the blink of an eye we call his peak to justify induction when guys like J.C. Tremblay, Mark Howe, Cecil Dillon and Carl Brewer are still on the outside looking in? Neely's peak was fantastic (really, he was a great, great player when healthy), and he's certainly worthy of a 4th round pick if you can keep him healthy, but this is a nightmare matchup for Halifax. In the Foster Hewitt, you might be able to sneak Neely into the Conference Finals still in one piece and then shoot enough cortizone in him to keep him moving through the finals, but this is the second round and Scott Stevens is the last guy you want to see on the ice at this point in the playoffs if you're Neely's owner.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Congrats, VanI, you are the first person in the history of the game (with the exception of a Bruin fan with blinders on) to say John McKenzie is equal to George Armstrong, "all things considered."

Armstrong is a much better player than McKenzie. You want to cite stats? It was easier to score in the early 70s than during the Original 6 era. Six to eight new teams will do that. When Armstrong put up nearly a point-per game from 62 to 64, he was playing against HHOFers at all positions. Was McKenzie facing an HHOF goalie night in, night out.

Armstrong is a better all-round player than McKenzie. And it's not close. His numbers would look a lot better if he played in the 70s, when he would have been facing weaker goalies, and when he would have had the benefit of defencemen jumping into the play, providing another option instead of just his fellow forwards.

The question you need to ask: can any of your players keep up with the Bentleys? They're two of the fastest players in the draft. And they're two of the smartest. That's a dangerous combo. It's one thing to face fast skaters. It's another to face skilled players. It's more dangerous to face smart players. And it's most dangerous to face players who combine speed, skill and smarts. Dino Ciccarelli won't be able to keep pace with Doug Bentley. Not fast enough, or smart enough.

And when they have Cam Neely (No. 4 all-time in playoff goals per game) on their wing, it's no wonder that several GMs have listed Bentley-Bentley-Neely as the best in the draft.

Outside of Luce and Brind'Amour, there isn't anyone on New York that's really imposing as a defensive forward. Lots of good grinders (and then a couple guys, like Andreychuk and Martinec, who aren't hitters or defensively aware), lots of physical players, but there's a difference between being physical and great defensively.

The Bentley's won Lady Byngs. So what? Does that mean their soft? By no means. Doug Bentley was an excellent two-way forward, and Max Bentley was very aggressive in the offensive zone. (And did quite well in one of the toughest times in NHL history). And he stayed healthy. Didn't miss more than three games from 43-52 (with the exception two years when he went to war). Keep in mind that there was a time that the Byng didn't just go to the offensive player with the lowest PIM total; it used to go to guys who played hard, played clean, and didn't put up PIM totals. There's a difference between being sportsmanlike, and being soft.