ATD2010 Foster Hewitt Semi-Final: Tidewater Sharks (2) vs. Vancouver Maroons (3)

[VanIslander]

The Foster Hewitt Division Semi-Final Round:


Tidewater Sharks

coach Cecil Hart

Sid Smith - Peter Forsberg - Jarome Iginla (A)
Ilya Kovalchuk - Mats Sundin (A) - Harry Hyland
Dave Balon - Cooney Weiland - Bruce Stuart
Bobby Holik - Doug Jarvis - John MacLean
Sven "Tumba" Johansson - Chalie Burns

Doug Harvey - Ebbie Goodfellow
King Clancy (C) - Lloyd Cook
Harry Mummery - Alexander Gusev
Hobey Baker

Grant Fuhr
Mike Liut


vs.


Vancouver Maroons

coach Jacques Lemaire

Ace Bailey - Milt Schmidt (C) - Pavel Bure
Theo Fleury - Doug Gilmour (A) - Bobby Bauer
Joe Klukay - Don Luce - Gary Dornhoefer
Tomas Holmstrom - Dale Hunter - Duane Sutter
Craig Simpson, Corb Denneny

Guy Lapointe - Herb Gardiner
Harry Howell (A) - Paul Reinhart
Kevin Hatcher - Gary Bergman
Dion Phaneuf

Patrick Roy
Ron Hextall

​

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Tidewater Sharks

PP1: Smith - Forsberg - Iginla - Harvey - Goodfellow
PP2: Kovalchuk - Sundin - Hyland - Clancy - Cook

PK1: Jarvis - Goodfellow - Harvey - Mummery
PK2: Weiland - Balon - Clancy - Gusev

vs.

Vancouver Maroons

PP1: Bailey - Gilmour - Bure - Lapointe - Reinhart
PP2: Holmstrom - Schmidt - Bauer - Hatcher - Bergman

PK1: Klukay - Luce - Howell - Gardiner
PK2: Bailey - Schmidt - Lapointe - Bergman

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This looks to be a really low scoring series. I'm not sure who that favors.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Who is the puck winner on Tidewater's second line? Also, Sundin has a history of being stifled by trapping teams and Kovalchuk's trademark of carrying the puck 1 vs. 5 probably don't help either. I don't think Tidewater's second line will be very effective in this series.

On the other hand, Tidewater's blueline is absolutely made to beat the trap. Harvey and Clancy are huge back there.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

I've been working on a couple long posts that will probably come tomorrow.

A preview of the arguments to come:

- Vancouver's top-six is better than Tidewater's top-six. Vancouver is stronger down the middle with Schmidt-Gilmour going up against Forsberg-Sundin. Vancouver's Pavel Bure is the most dangerous goal scorer in the series, and much better then Tidewater's #1 goalscoring threat, Kovalchuk.

- Vancouver's top 2 lines are constructed really well to make the players better than the sum of their parts and as effective as possible. However, Tidewater's forwards look really awkward next to each other and the second line in particular is a mish mash. The forward combinations are bizarre, and it almost seems like certain players will be impacted NEGATIVELY by their ATD linemates.

- There are 5 men on the ice every shift, and only 2/5 of them are defensemen. Two-way forwards, team defense, and an effective system can matter just as much as the defensemen.

- Roy vs Fuhr. Nuff' said.

 

[Hedberg]

- Vancouver's top 2 lines are constructed really well to make the players better than the sum of their parts and as effective as possible. However, Tidewater's forwards look really awkward next to each other and the second line in particular is a mish mash. The forward combinations are bizarre, and it almost seems like certain players will be impacted NEGATIVELY by their ATD linemates.

This criticism is just as applicable to Vancouver as it is to Tidewater. Tidewater's top 6 are all in their natural positions while Vancouver is relying upon right wings Theo Fleury and Ace Bailey to play the left side. The second line really isn't that mish-mash. Sundin was more of a goal scorer than a play maker out of necessity than out of inclination and could adequately work as the set up man (as could the defence)

I don't get what Doernhofer is bringing to the third line as while the other two guys can check, Doernhofer isn't particularly good defensively and in the ATD setting, not a great offensive threat either. Holmstrom-Hunter-Sutter is also a weird line as Holmstrom works great as a net presence but is rather average defensively and physically. Duane Sutter can hit, but little else.

 

[vancityluongo]

Gotta start off by congratulating HHH for advancing to the second round as a rook and wish him a good series.

Also, Sundin has a history of being stifled by trapping teams and Kovalchuk's trademark of carrying the puck 1 vs. 5 probably don't help either.

1) Not to sound like a Leafs-fan () but Sundin never having linemates applies here as well. Kind of tough to do much without anyone helping, especially when facing a legitimate structured system like the trap.
2) Hey, just cause Kovalchuk sucks playing WITH the trap, doesn't mean he can't beat it. (this is a failed subtle shot at the New Jersey Devils)

Anyways, my quick thoughts and responses on this series:

-Both teams seem to be built around defense. Problem is, one actually has a stud blueline, while the other is lacklustre in personal, but makes up for that slightly cohesively. 6 defensemen play 60 minutes. Even one, unreliable defensemen means that you have a serious liability on the ice for that 5-8 minutes or whatever. Not saying Bergman or Hatcher are necessarily, but while weak links can be covered up front by spreading minutes around evenly, it's much harder to do that on the backend, which is probably why you see such a premium on defensemen in the draft.

-Can Gardiner handle top pairing minutes? That's the biggest flaw I see on defense, if I was doing an assassination, I'd suggest that you pair Lapointe and Howell, that'd at least be an adequate pairing, although still rather sub-par as far as top pairings go IMO.

-Speaking of awkward combos (in response to the comments about our second line), I'm kinda confused by Schmidt-Bure. Two absolutely opposite players. Is Schmidt's "character" supposed to ooze onto Bure or something?

-How is the first line awkward at all? Traditional playmaker, powerforward and finisher. Isn't that how most lines are built in this?

-Goaltending is an easy one, Roy is top-3, Fuhr is middle of the pack, possibly a bit higher in the playoffs. Can't argue there.

-I got attacked last draft for Lemaire-Kovalchuk (and it appears, rightfully so as I don't know if those two meshed very well in Jersey, but apparently not according to what I've heard). Lemaire-Bure is worse. I don't think Bure is the enigma many make him out to be, but I'm not sure how he'll handle the trap. Best offensive player talent wise, maybe. But I personally think someone like Forsberg will outproduce him.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

I believe that the Vancouver top-six is a lot more effective than Tidewater's top-six. Vancouver is extremely strong down the middle with Schmidt and Gilmour. Vancouver also has the best scorer in the series, Pavel Bure, who is much more lethal than Tidewater's best scorer, Ilya Kovalchuk. Furthermore, Vancouver's lines are constructed to make each player as effective as possible, whereas Tidewater's top-six looks bizarre (mostly because their 4 best players all peaked in the 2000's, think of this what you will, but I don't like it) and some of the combination feel really awkward. The 2nd line of Kovalchuk-Sundin-Hyland is just brutally constructed, but we'll get to this later...

I’m going to start this analysis by comparing each team’s strength down the middle, who has the better guy anchoring each line?

Milt Schmidt vs Peter Forsberg

Top-10s in Hart Trophy Voting

Schmidt: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 4th, 5th
Forsberg: 1st, 7th, 8th

Conn-Smythe Trophies

Schmidt: 1
Forsberg: none!

Top 10s in Goals

Schmidt: 2nd, 6th, 9th
Forsberg: none!

Top 10s in Assists

Schmidt: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 4th
Forsberg: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th

If you look at their pure offensive numbers, Schmidt and Forsberg have almost identical assist finishes when comparing their most dominant seasons. Schmidt was clearly able to produce assists at the same elite level as Forsberg when looking at the elite (top-4 finishes). Forsberg only gets a minor advantage because his assist finishes carry on afterwards with more average 6th, 9th and 10th finishes, whereas Schmidt doesn’t have any top-10 finishes after that. This is sort of the same dynamic as a peak vs longevity scenario, to some extent. Schmidt’s peak was shorter, so Forsberg has better finishes later on, but at the height of their peaks, Schmidt produced just as well as Forsberg.

However, if you look at the goal scoring finishes, Forsberg never even registered in the top-10, whereas Schmidt has three top-10 finishes, and a 2nd place finish that proves he was capable of scoring goals at an elite level too.

Schmidt was capable of being both a goal scorer and a playmaker. He was a much more dominant goal scorer then Forsberg, and his best assist finishes are just as good as Forsberg the playmaker’s. Schmidt, however, is a far better overall player. Forsberg was a fine two-way player, but Schmidt is an elite two-way center who also brings even more to the table then just scoring and defense. In an overall context, Schmidt’s intangibles are in the Trottier/Clarke tier.

You can see the difference in Schmidt and Forsberg’s overall value when comparing their Hart Trophy voting records. Schmidt is so much more valuable to a team then Forsberg, and the advantage here goes to the Vancouver Maroons.

Joe Pelletier:

Schmidt was considered to be the ultimate two-way player of his day, a Trottier or Steve Yzerman of the 1940s. He was small but determined. He was a strong skater and clever puck distributor but also a great finish. As beautiful as he was to watch on the offense, the Bruins long time captain took equal pride in the defensive zone, and was not afraid to get his nose dirty. While he usually played cleanly, one reporter described his play as "angry."

Maurice Richard:

There's no doubt that Milt Schmidt was the best center I have ever played against. He was a good scorer too.

-------------

Doug Gilmour vs Mats Sundin

Top 10s in Hart Trophy Voting

Gilmour: 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th
Sundin: 8th

Top 10s in Selke Trophy Voting

Gilmour: 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 9th
Sundin: none!

Top 10s in Goals

Gilmour: 10th
Sundin: 2nd, 8th, 10th

Top 10s in Assists

Gilmour: 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 8th
Sundin: 10th

Top 10s in Points

Gilmour: 4th, 5th, 7th
Sundin: 4th, 7th

Offensively, Gilmour was a play maker and Sundin was a goal scorer, but Gilmour’s advantage in assist top-10s is much greater than Sundin’s advantage in goal-scoring top-10s. They both only have a 10th place finish in the opposite category (goals/assists), so if you compare Gilmour’s assist finishes to Sundin’s goalscoring finishes, and cancel out the identical finishes, it looks like this:

Gilmour’s assist finishes: 2nd, 5th, 6th
vs
Sundin’s goal scoring finishes: 10th

So Gilmour has an advantage in regular season offensive numbers, but the playoffs are where Gilmour was even better. Lets take a look at each player’s 5 best post-seasons…

Doug Gilmour

1986: 21 points in 19 games, 1st in PTS

1988: 17 points in 10 games, 17th in PTS

1989: 22 points in 22 games, 5th in PTS,

1993: 35 points in 21 games, 2nd in PTS

1994: 28 points in 18 games, 4th in PTS

Total: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 17th

Mats Sundin

1995: 9 points in 7 games, 38th in PTS

1999: 16 points in 17 games, 7th in PTS

2001: 13 points in 11 games, 16th in PTS

2004: 9 points in 9 games, 26th in PTS

2009: 8 points in 8 games, 51st in PTS

Total: 7th, 16th, 26th, 38th, 51st

Gilmour has better top-10 scoring finishes, was absolutely MONEY in the playoffs, and brought so much more to the game than Sundin. He was a multi-dimensional player with an array of intangibles whereas Sundin was a fairly average and basically one-dimensional forward. Just look at Gilmour's elite Selke voting record, then look at Sundin's selke record (or lack thereof), and then compare their Hart Trophy voting records. No question about it, Gilmour is a far superior player compared to Sundin. Vancouver has a HUGE advantage here.

---------------

Bailey-Schmidt-Bure vs Smith-Forsberg-Iginla

Vancouver has created a great line around Schmidt, and so has Tidewater for the most part, but Vancouver's first line is still more effective. Schmidt is better then Forsberg so Vancouver's first line has the most important advantage already. Vancouver also has the better left-winger on these lines. Ace Bailey's scoring finishes are 1st, 4th, 6th while Sid Smith's are 5th, 8th, and 10th. Bailey has won both a retro-Rocket Richard trophy and a retro-Art Ross trophy. Bailey was also more multi-dimensional than Smith, he was known as a great defensive forward and penalty killer. Tidewater has a bit of an advantage on the RW because Iginla is a better overall player than Bure when comparing their careers. However, Bure was arguably the best pure goalscorer of the 1990's and he is definitely a greater scoring threat than Iginla. With Schmidt and Bailey as his linemates, covering for him defensively, he'll be able to excel in this series and with his speed he'll be lethal every shift.

Vancouver has the better left winger and the better center, and the most dangerous scorer on either of these lines at RW. Vancouver's top line is also far better in the defensive zone, and a more multi-dimensional first line.


Fleury-Gilmour-Bauer vs Kovalchuk-Sundin-Hyland

Tidewater's second line is a disaster.

Kovalchuk-Sundin look weird together, and I’m not sure how that line would work because they both like to carry the puck. Hyland on the RW doesn’t help either because he’s more of a goal-scorer, so now you have three guys on a line who are all more goal scorers than they are playmakers. There isn't nearly enough puck to go around, and who's going to be the set-up man? There’s also no one on this line to compensate for the defensive liability that is Ilya Kovalchuk. Not to mention, Sundin and Kovalchuk have both always struck me as guys with “vanilla” personalities. Especially Kovalchuk, his heart, desire to win, and at times lack of effort have always been in question.

Vancouver has a HUGE advantage at center, Gilmour is considered by many to be a top-100 player of all-time, he's in a different league compared to Sundin, and will be so much more effective than Sundin. I'm also pretty sure that Vancouver has the better RW, unless VCL and ALB can present a compelling argument for why Hyland is better than Bauer. I'd like to see how he ranks in scoring finishes next to his contemporaries (in other leagues as well). Kovalchuk is the better left winger on these lines. I seriously question his heart though, especially compared to Theo Fleury who brings a lot of character, heart, grit, and defense. It's kind of ironic comparing these guys actually, because Fleury is the anti-thesis of Kovalchuk. Not to mention, Fleury has a CLUTCH playoff record and Kovalchuk doesn't really have one at all.

Vancouver has the better second line because Gilmour is soooo much better than Sundin, Bauer is better than Hyland, Gilmour/Fleury have more heart, better playoff records, and are far more complete players than Kovalchuk/Sundin are. Vancouver's 2nd line will also benefit from playing with their new ATD linemates, whereas the Tidewater 2nd line is constructed so poorly that it hurts each of their players individually.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Congrats VCL and ALB on making it to the 2nd round, also, a round of cheers for our boys knocking out LA last night! Down with the Hawks!

I kind of addressed a few of your points in my last post, but tomorrow I'll address the other ones that I feel are important or serious accusations. Apologies, I'm just really tired right now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I

Especially Kovalchuk, his heart, desire to win, and at times lack of effort have always been in question.

It's a really small part of his career, but I think Kovalchuk showed a huge amount of effort and desire in his time in NJ. In the playoffs, he was playing with fire - much more than the rest of the team with their "oh well, we won already" attitude. Kovalchuk's problem is more of a lack of hockey sense IMO. The joke on the Devils board was that Kovalchuk has Ovechkin's skills combined with David Clarkson's hockey sense. If you don't know who Clarkson is, that's not meant to be a compliment.

Kovalchuk raved about how much Jacques Lemaire taught him about actually playing hockey. It's as if the guy has never been coached before in his life. On Tidewater, Kovy has a better coach than he ever had in real life, but that can only mitigate a lack of hockey sense somewhat.

Kovalchuk is a guy who doesn't really use his linemates, much like Bure actually.

But lack of effort? I don't see it.

 

[Hedberg]

Congrats VCL and ALB on making it to the 2nd round, also, a round of cheers for our boys knocking out LA last night! Down with the Hawks!

Thanks and the same to you. Great job by a rookie to get out of the first round

 

[Hedberg]

Furthermore, Vancouver's lines are constructed to make each player as effective as possible, whereas Tidewater's top-six looks bizarre (mostly because their 4 best players all peaked in the 2000's, think of this what you will, but I don't like it) and some of the combination feel really awkward.

I know 2000s players are viewed as weaker because everyone knows their strengths and weaknesses, but it's as legitimate as any other era

Gilmour has better top-10 scoring finishes, was absolutely MONEY in the playoffs, and brought so much more to the game than Sundin. He was a multi-dimensional player with an array of intangibles whereas Sundin was a fairly average and basically one-dimensional forward. Just look at Gilmour's elite Selke voting record, then look at Sundin's selke record (or lack thereof), and then compare their Hart Trophy voting records. No question about it, Gilmour is a far superior player compared to Sundin. Vancouver has a HUGE advantage here.

I think one dimensional is a bit unfair to Sundin. One-dimensional players are guys who help on offense, but are useless on defence (or vice-versa). Sundin, while not an ideal shut down guy, certainly isn't going to hurt defensively.

Gilmour's Selke record is helped a bit because the Selke was used in the 90s as a consolation for guys not good enough to win the Hart. He's clearly better than Sundin defensively, but he's not on the same level as many other Selke winners.

Tidewater's second line is a disaster.

Kovalchuk-Sundin look weird together, and I’m not sure how that line would work because they both like to carry the puck. Hyland on the RW doesn’t help either because he’s more of a goal-scorer, so now you have three guys on a line who are all more goal scorers than they are playmakers. There isn't nearly enough puck to go around, and who's going to be the set-up man? There’s also no one on this line to compensate for the defensive liability that is Ilya Kovalchuk.

I've mentioned before, Sundin can be a playmaker. It's quite easy to be a playmaker when you have elite linemates, something Sundin lacked most of his career. The shell of his former self in Vancouver was effective at passing, so the prime version of himself probably could function quite well in that role.

And the defense can cover for Kovalchuk (who isn't as much of a liability as is sometimes thought)

Not to mention, Sundin and Kovalchuk have both always struck me as guys with “vanilla” personalities.

Sundin survived as Leafs captain for years and captained a team to an Olympic Gold Medal. One can't accomplish that with a "vanilla" personality

Especially Kovalchuk, his heart, desire to win, and at times lack of effort have always been in question.

Kovalchuk has a ton of desire. He's immature about it some times (smashing sticks against the class, etc), but he definitely cares.

Vancouver has a HUGE advantage at center, Gilmour is considered by many to be a top-100 player of all-time

? I think most consider him outside of that (although not far outside)

I'm also pretty sure that Vancouver has the better RW, unless VCL and ALB can present a compelling argument for why Hyland is better than Bauer. I'd like to see how he ranks in scoring finishes next to his contemporaries (in other leagues as well).

Hyland's scoring finishes (courtesy of EB):
Eastern Canada Hockey League [1908-09]
Top-10 Scoring (6th)
Top-10 Goalscoring (6th)
*Assist were not recorded*
National Hockey Association [1909-11;1912-17]*
Top-10 Scoring (3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th)
Top-10 Goalscoring (3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th)
Top-10 Assist (4th, 9th)
Pacific Coast Hockey Association [1911-12]
Top-10 Scoring (2nd)
Top-10 Goalscoring (2nd)
*Assist were not recorded*
National Hockey League [1917-18]
Top-10 Goalscoring (8th)

I think any offensive advantage in the top 6 will be negated by two things:

A) Jacques Lemaire hinders offensive talent. I think some of Vancouver's forwards will fit in great with what Lemaire wants, but they won't put up their best possible numbers.

B) Depth scoring

Third Line:
Cooney Weiland, with his Art Ross, is clearly the most talented of the bottom 6 players offensively. Having a third offensive line helps Tidewater to spread out the scoring. Dave Balon, in addition to being as good as an energy player as anyone on Vancouver, had two top-10 finishes in goals. Bruce Stuart provides some size and toughness on the line and will be able to chip in.

On Vancouver, none of the bottom 6 had top-10 finishes in goals and other than Klukay will not provide meaningful offence while in addition to the third line of Tidewater, MacLean can add offence.

While Vancouver's third line is the checking line, the 4th line is less focused. Hunter can score a bit, but his career totals are more attributable to longevity than dominance. Holmstrom is an awkward player anywhere other than the front of the net.

Tidewater also has a significant advantage on defence because the two best defenders and three of the best four in the series are on Tidewater. Tidewater, using home ice, can dictate the defense matchups and Harvey and Clancy are both adept at controlling the play while they're on the ice, which is why they are split up. The offensive ability of Tidewater's top four can also help alleviate any playmaking issues (the second unit could be particularly deadly, because all three of them are adept goal scorers, which gives the break out and point passes of Clancy and Cook a lot to work with.)

 

[VanIslander]

Wednesday is Voting Day

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

At the end of the day, a hockey match ultimately comes down to two things: who scored the most goals and who prevented the most goals.

I've already made a lengthy post regarding the forward match-up. Vancouver has better forwards, the most dangerous scorer in the series, and two far more multi-dimensional and effective top lines.

So now I want to talk about how the team's compare in their own zones, and which team will have less pucks end up in the back of their net.

Tidewater easily has the best defensive personnel in the series, however, Vancouver can largely compensate for this disadvantage for a number of reasons....

1. For starters, Howell and Gardiner are two outstanding defensive defensemen. Their overall careers don't compare to the glamour of Harvey's or Clancy's, but when it comes to defensive play, they were both complete studs on the blueline. Neither of these guys are going to make mistakes or be caught out of position because they tried to do too much in the offensive zone.

The HHOF:

Gardiner was a rock on the defense corps of every team he played on, and he was also respected for his consistent play through each season

Joe Pelletier:

It could be said that Howell was the last defensive defenseman to win the Norris trophy, as the award took on a different definition after Bobby Orr....

Although not an overly aggressive rearguard he used his hockey sense to become an extremely effective defensive player. He was quite the unsung hero....

He was a reliable work horse who could always be counted on to bring his steady game every night of the week. A master of the poke check, his understated brilliance was certainly appreciated by his coaches and teammates, especially his goaltenders. He always was able to steer oncoming attackers to the boards and away from scoring spots.

Doug Harvey:

They don’t come much better than Harry

Emile Francis:

Hockey is a game of mistakes, and Harry doesn't make many of them.

2. "Defense" is the responsibility of all 5 men on the ice, not just the defensemen, and preventing goals requires the combined effort of a whole team. The Vancouver Maroon lineup is chalk full of some of the greatest two-way forwards in history! Schmidt, Gilmour, Bailey, Fleury, Klukay, and Luce! There will be at least two of these guys on the ice for 52-53 minutes of the game. Coach Lemaire can have complete confidence that his centers will always be back-checking, he knows that Fleury and Bailey will also make the effort and can be highly effective against the opposing forwards in the defensive zone.

Look at Tidewater's forwards though, not a single forward on this team stands out as an elite two-way player! Take their 2nd line of Kovalchuk-Sundin-Hyland for example. This line is going to be on the ice for close to 20 minutes a game, and has the potential to create huge defensive flaws and lapses in defensive play. Kovalchuk is a HUGE defensive liability and it's almost a guarantee that he won't make the effort to back-check. Unlike Vancouver's Bure though, he isn't playing with two great defensive forwards that can compensate for this. Kovalchuk is playing with Sundin and Hyland, neither of these guys were known as great players in their own zone, and neither are bonafide two-way players in an ATD context. In fact, on any given shift, there's a chance that none of these 3 players are going to back-check, and even when they do, Sundin and Hyland won't be particularly effective if the Vancouver offense sustains pressure.

Vancouver's forwards are smart defensive players, they'll make the effort to backcheck, they'll be in position defensively, and they're willing to do things like block shots. You can't say the same about Tidewater's forward group, and in a close playoff matchup, things like this can cost you important goals, and eventually the series.

3. Vancouver is being coached by Jacques Lemaire, and all players (except Bure) will be playing in a structured system that focuses on cohesive team defense, defensive responsibility, and goal prevention. Tidewater will also have to deal with the neutral zone trap.

4. Vancouver has one of the best penalty kills in the entire league this year, and especially good PK forwards. Tidewater has a very average penalty kill, and arguably the weakest PK forwards in the league. Decisive advantage to the Vancouver PK.

5. The most important defenseman, penalty killer, or just overall player for any team is the man between the pipes. Your goalie is your real #1 defenseman, he plays 60 minutes a game and is the last line of defense. Great goalies can totally change the dynamic of a game, and as we've all witnessed, a great goalie can carry a team on his back. I don't need to pimp the difference between Roy and Fuhr, it's huge, and everyone knows it is, and everyone knows why.

As a gentle reminder though, this is what the Tidewater forwards will look at all series before they shoot, and make no mistake about it, every forward is intimidated when they see Roy between the pipes waiting for them.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Please read my arguments in this thread!

I know not all of you have the time to do that though, so I'll summarize why Vancouver wins this series really briefly:

- Vancouver is stronger down the middle, and has the most dangerous scorer in the entire series (Bure). The Vancouver forwards are better than Tidewater's forwards, and both the Vancouver top lines are more multi-dimensional and effective.

- Vancouver has the better goalie in the series BY FAR. Roy is arguably the greatest goalie of all-time, especially in the playoffs. An elite goalie like Roy can single-handedly win a series for his team.

- Tidewater has the better defensive pairings, but Vancouver partially compensates for this disadvantage with much better two-way forwards, a cohesive team-defense mentality, a better PK, and Jacques Lemaire's coaching/the trap.

 

[seventieslord]

Vancouver defeats Tidewater in 6 games.

3 stars: Patrick Roy, Doug Harvey, Milt Schmidt.

 

[Hedberg]

Congratulations hungryhungryhippy

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Congratulations hungryhungryhippy

Thanks mate, congrats to you and VCL as well for coming as far and putting together a good team, it's a shame that 1 good team has to be eliminated every series.

Thanks to everyone who voted for the Vancouver Maroons as well.

 

[vancityluongo]

Congrats hhh. Wish I would've had some more time to make some comments, but I'm not sure if it would've made too much difference, you had a great team. Now let's see the other 3rd seeded Vancouver team beat a 2nd seeded opponent, if you catch my drift.