I've been waiting for NP to post the gameplan (didn't want to steal his thunder) so I could get to work doing what I do best. Let the deconstruction begin.....
I think we do have some advantages. The first is character. Playoffs are about character. Our toughest decision was not who to pick, but who to get the letters. Schmidt was our captain from the start. Robinson, Bucyk, Robinson, Day, Lemaire, McPhee and Morrow would have all been great choices for a letter. We decided to assign three on a rotating basis.
Is this somehow an implication that your team has more "heart"? Are you trying to suggest the Fighting Saints lack leadership? I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove here, but the Saints have players who have proven to have tons of "heart" and some of the games outstanding leaders. Beliveau's leadership really needs no mention. Langway's leadership simply can't be questioned, either in the NHL or internationally. I can provide several quotes to that if you doubt it. Metz was a leader on one of only two teams to win a series after going down 3-0. Ragulin was a leader on teams with enormous pressure to win. Guys like Graves, Gare, Errey, Baker, and Howe all provided leadership for teams. There is no lack of "heart" or leadership on this team. Several players on our roster were parts of some of the greatest upsets and comebacks in NHL history. Any edge you feel you might have is slight at best, and if you consider home-ice advantage to be trivial than your perceived miniscule edge in leadership won't even register on an electron microscope as far as series-determining factors.
Any one of our centres can play against Beliveau. That's a big perk. Any of our lines can play against Beliveau's line. That's also a big advantage. We have a strong assortment of two-way players on all four lines. When you have forwards like Bucyk, Schmidt, Lemaire and Larmer on the top two lines, you can wait to start assembling the third line.
None of your lines will be dominated by the Beliveau line, but if you all 4 of them would be equally effective against it you are mistaken. NP has already covered this.
We're going to try to get Mohns out there against Bure whenever possible. This is why we got Mohns: a strong, very mobile, two-way defenceman who could take care of his own zone. I watched Bure play some terrific hockey in the playoffs. People talk about his performance in 1994; I thought he was more consistent in 1995. Frankly, in 1994, there were stretches, especially against the Rangers and Calgary, when he was ineffective. But I also watched him struggle in the playoffs. And not always against star defencemen. (Alexei Zhitnik in 1993, anyone?). Mohns can definitely neutralize Bure.
Doug Mohns can neutralize Pavel Bure? Really? Firstly, your claims that Bure "struggled in the playoffs" make me scratch my head. When exactly did this struggling occur? The guy scored at least a point-per-game in every playoff year except his rookie season (where he scored 6 goals and 10 points in 13 games). You dismiss criticism of Johnny Bucyk's playoff results claiming it was his first two season, yet you say Bure was shut down in his sophomore campaign and that's a strike against him? As a 21 year old he scored 12 points in 12 games during the 1993 playoffs so I don't think anyone really shut him down that season. This is a guy who averaged over 1 goal every 2 games in his playoff career. That's not a type of track record ANYONE is going to neutralize. You can try to contain and minimize it, but you can't shut it down completely. Let's also remember all but 4 games of his playoff career occured well before his prime from the ages 20-23 so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that had he been on playoff teams during his prime years his goals-per-game numbers might even be better. I don't care how fast you think Diesel is, one mistake or fumbled puck is all it takes to spring Bure. Just ask Ray Bourque what happens when you
make one tiny mistake with Bure on the ice. Here's another clip showing just how incredible his speed is
in a footrace with Brian Leetch in the 1994 playoffs, and pulling away even. Bure could score against anyone, and Doug Mohns isn't going to be the first to "neutralize" Pavel Bure.
Even when he's not scoring he elevates the level of his teams play. In a
November 29, 1999 column in The Sporting News, Larry Wigge claims "
You don't calculate Bure's value to South Florida on a per-game basis. Even when he's not in the lineup, there's an aura of Pavelmania in the Panthers locker room. You can feel it. ". What is Pavelmania exactly though? Teammate Rob Niedermayer describes it as "
It's sort of like just being in the building with Michael Jordan. There's just a special sort of feeling in the air.". Neidermayer explains how this affects the team "
He works just as hard at practice as he does in the games. You constantly judge your improvement to his level of play. And even when he's not around, you find yourself doing those same things to get better.". Panthers coach Terry Murray said "
Pavel has made an impression on every player on our roster.". Teammate Ray Whitney said "
When he has the puck, it brings people out of their seats--and he brings us to our feet on the bench. There aren't many players in hockey who can do that.". Even opposing coaches noticed how Bure's presence elevated the play of his entire team:
"You can see the confidence on their faces when Pavel is around," Penguins coach Kevin Constantine says. "Give him an inch, and he'll find an opening and either score the winner or set it up."
Pavel Bure simply make everyone on his team better, whether he's on the ice or off it.
We also have much better playoff production from the wings. As I've said previously, it's not that Martin and Gare have bad playoff records. It's just they're underwhelming. Especially Martin. I think if Martin had Neely's playoff record, Martin would be in the HHOF. For such a dynamic goal scorer, I'd like to see more than 24 goals in 63 games. Gare's an excellent two-way player, and he can be effective when he's not scoring. But again, there isn't much that stands out for Gare.
This is a team that doesn't have a ton of WOW playoff years, but we built them to be consistent. You know exactly what you'll get from every player on the team. There isn't any boom-or-bust player that can sink the team with a bad series. Everyone is simply consistent, and consistently productive.
My simple assertion was that Langway didn't elevate his game in the playoffs. He wasn't as airtight as some would make him out to be. I watched Washington play a lot of hockey in the 1980s. Langway was never the biggest reason the Caps lost a series. Coaching, goaltending and Mike Gartner were bigger reasons. But Langway shouldn't be immune from criticism over Washington's failure. Those Washington teams might rate among the biggest playoff chokers of all-time.
Again, this is all fine and dandy but can you find anything from a source out there to corroborate this? Any other hockey historian or player or coach or book or ANYTHING calling him overrated or unable to elevate his game in the playoffs? I respect your opinion GBC, but in the battle of an ATD you'll have to forgive me for wanting more than just that in this case.
You'd be surprised at our combination of toughness and discipline. Bucyk played tough. Won two Lady Byngs, too. Schmidt was a physical and clean player. So was McPhee. So was Skov. (One season in the top 10 for PIMs). Corson only had one season in the top 10 of PIMs, too, for what it's worth. And look at our defence. Robinson, Mohns, Harris and Day all played the tough physical game. They combined to have one top-10 finish in PIMs in their career - Day was No. 8 in 1928-29. We aren't going to spend a lot of time in the penalty box, either. And we have terrific penalty killing when we are in the box.
Not being in the top 10 only proves a player isn't one of the leagues most penalized, but it doesn't change the fact that they take penalties at a high clip. Cam Neely averaged almost 1 penalty per game in his career. Shayne Corson averaged more than 1 penalty per game in his career. Glev Skov actually had a quite a few seasons of high PIM numbers when you consider he was a 3rd/4th liner and had totals comparable to Gordie Howe on the same team. Brenden Morrow averages a penalty every 1.5 games. Blair Russell actually had several times where he averaged 1 penalty per game or more. Bill Barilko averaged close to 1 penalty per game in his short career. You lineup features alot of players who aren't dirty, but have proven to be prone to penalties throughout their careers and I see no reason why any of that would change now.
How can home ice advantage break a team that isn't interested in playing a matchup game? We're just going to roll four lines, all of which, as Nalyd has said two or three times, could be considered checking lines. If you're going to play that third line against the BBB line you're just going to be limiting your scoring chances. I really don't understand how home ice is going to change this.
Whether you like to admit it or not, having a Metz-Langway-Seibert trio on the ice at all times against your BBB is a big factor. Some teams have the offensive trio of doom. We have a defensive trio that's hard to beat. Those three will slow down your Bruins. Since we aren't line matching either in this series, it won't affect our scoring one bit. Metz will also bounce between the Beliveau and Holik lines at times, both of which can matchup defensively with your top line.
The biggest factor is Pavel Bure. You talk about trying to have Mohns out against him all the time, but 4 times in a 7 game series we'll be able to avoid that matchup part of the time if we so choose. We can toss him out there after an icing against a tired defensive squad and let him use his speed and skating to it's fullest.
Pat Burns in a great X's and O's coach who creates strong defensive schemes. He's the type of coach who can use that home-ice advantage to its fullest potential over the coarse of 7 games.
And what's up with everyone completely ignoring Schmidt? He's the second biggest forward in the series by a large margin and quite possibly the most complete player.
I'm assuming by second biggest you don't mean size, because he isn't in that case. He a strong player and good 1st liner in the ATD without a doubt. His accolades are impressive. But he's no Jean Beliveau. They aren't even in the same class and if you are trying to insinutate that the matchup between them is even you are way off. He won the Art Ross, but was only top 10 in scoring 4 other times (4th twice and 10th twice). He was top 10 in goals 3 times (2nd, 6th, 9th) and assists 4 times (1st, 3rd, 4th twice). All this while playing a physical game. A very strong resume indeed. But still not in the same league as Believeau. Jean also has an Art Ross, but was top 10 in scoring
11 other times as well. Let's just straight compare them:
Top 10 Scoring - Beliveau 12-5
Top 5 Scoring - Beliveau 8-3
Top 3 Scoring - Beliveau 7-1
Scoring Leader - Tied 1-1
Top 10 Goals - Beliveau 10-3
Top 5 Goals - Beliveau 7-1
Top 3 Goals - Beliveau 6-1
Goal Leader - Beliveau 2-0
Top 10 Assists - Beliveau 11-4
Top 5 Assists - Beliveau 7-4
Top 3 Assists - Beliveau 6-2
Assist Leader - Beliveau 2-1
Beliveau was also an excellent defensive player and a physical player as well. At 6'3" 205lbs he'd be big in today's NHL and was towering in his era. His accomplishments were against some of the best top-end talent in NHL history as well. Schmidt never won a scoring title competing against Howe, both Richards, Lindsay, Bathgate, Geoffrion, or Dickie Moore. I love Milt Schmidt and think he's very underrated by most people here, but let's not go overboard with this guy. He's not Beliveau's equal, or even peer. He's a clear step below.
Let's not forget Schmidt had a few clunker playoff seasons as well, so he's not immune to criticism in the playoffs.
Ok, running out of steam for now. I'll have to pick this up again tomorrow after some sleep.
