ATD2011 Red Fisher Conf. Finals: Regina Pats vs. McGuire's Monsters

Discussion in 'All Time Draft' started by BillyShoe1721, May 21, 2011.

  1. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
  2. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario


    Good luck seventies. I look forward to this series.​
     
  3. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    I guess I'll start things off as usual with my first thoughts.

    Depsite having one of the most explosive top lines in the draft, I do have to concede that Regin definately has an edge in top lines. Messier is the best player, Bathgate is definately the best offensive player of the group, but Alf Smith stands out at the weakest guy on either line. The gap is definite, but I don't think it's a huge gap.

    Again, despite having one of the weaker second lines in the draft, I Regina's line is just as bad. I'll do some more in-depth analysis later, but the second lines appear to be relatively even.

    With one of the stronger checking lines of the draft, the Monsters have a pretty destinguished advantage on the third line. I'm not a fan of Regina's line at all.

    Regina has one of my favourite 4th lines of the draft.... and that's probably the only aspect of my team that I'm no really happy with. Fourth line edge to Regina.


    I like the pair of Clancy and Day, but Ray Bourque is just too dominant to beat here. I'm a big fan of Hap Day, and despite Green's peak, he's a little bit better. Bourque is just so much better than Clancy that the Monsters end up with a substantial edge on the top pairing.

    I think a good argument can be made that Hod Stuart is the 3rd best defenseman in this series. His fantastic overall game combined with Egan's stellr offense give me a pretty effective 2nd pair. Neilson and Reise are solid, but unspectacular. The Monsters have another substantia edge on the 2nd pairing.

    Both 3rd pairings are solid, and I don't see much of an edge either way.


    With Tretiak vs. Esposito, the Monsters shave a small, but definite edge in net.


    ____________________________

    Basically, Regina has better forwards, and McGuire's has better defense and goaltending.
     
  4. Velociraptor

    Velociraptor Registered User

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    10,953
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Big Smoke
    I can just see Chernyshev now...

    [​IMG]

    "Offense sells tickets; Defense wins championships"
     
  5. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    .... and then championships sell tickets.... so defense sells tickets? :naughty:
     
  6. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,471
    Likes Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Is Bourque really "so much better" than Clancy? Clancy was the second best defenseman after Eddie Shore of his era, and while Shore was obviously better than Clancy, was it "so much better?"

    Hod Stuart is the best defenseman on either second pair (Day vs Stuart would be an interesting discussion), but Egan is the worst.
     
  7. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,471
    Likes Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Anyway, I'm most interested in seeing how each team plans to deal with the other's top line here, especially since both teams out their beat offensive players on the top lines.
     
  8. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    Yes, Bourque is "so much better" than Clancy.

    He's better offensively, and he's a lot better defensively. He's also better in the play-offs, so the gap gets bigger in this series.

    Egan is defiantely better than Leo Reise Jr.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2011
  9. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    McGuire's Monsters will try to match the Laprade line and the Bourque pairing against the Messier line.

    Bourque is, by far, the best player in the series, and he is a dominant defensive force. While he's not a big hitter, he's definately big and strong enough to handle the likes of Messier and Bucyk. Ted Green will really help against the size factor down low.
     
  10. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    I've been wanting to correct my Dunderdale bio for a while now, but since the thread was locked, I never got to making a whole new one... but now it's done, and here it is:

    Tom Dunderdale
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2011
  11. raleh

    raleh Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dartmouth, NS
    While I agree that Bourque is the best player in the series, I think it's a bit much to say "by far". Keep in mind that in arguably his best season, he lost the Hart trophy to Messier. I think there is a very good argument that Messier is the best player in the series. It's not an argument I'd buy into, but it can definitely be made.
     
  12. vecens24

    vecens24 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    5,002
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    College
    Especially come playoff time you can make the argument. Not that Ray was bad, but Messier is one of the best ever. It's not by far I dont think either Dreak, but Bourque is the best player.
     
  13. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    I'm sure most people are well aware of the dishonest voting that let to Messier winning the Hart Trophy, so that's not really a very strong argument.

    The only way somebody could beleive Messier is better in this series is to completely ignore the regular season. Messier is one of the best play-off performers ever, but Bourque is pretty damn good too. Messier only has a minor advantage in the play-offs, and Bourque's overall career is so much better than Messier's that, even with Messier closing the gap a bit, the difference remains pretty big.

    Both guys played in the same era, so the comparison shouldn't be to tough. Messier put up 1.25 points per game and Bourque put up 0.85 points per game. Considering their different positions and different team situations, I don't think anyone could convincingly say one is better than the other.
     
  14. raleh

    raleh Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dartmouth, NS
    You're preaching to the choir, man! haha. Bourque is the better player. I was just pointing out that using the term "by far" was a bit much.
     
  15. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,471
    Likes Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    The "dishonest voting" was something like 2 or 3 voters (out of 100s) who didn't put Bourque on their ballots. As far as I'm concerned, the 1990 Hart was effectively a tie, it was so close.
     
  16. seventieslord

    seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    32,106
    Likes Received:
    1,055
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    Well, Dreak, thank you for not inundating this thread with posts full of nonsense for me to reply to, while I was enjoying my May Long Weekend. There is much to say, and a lot of series left to go (although I have to open up voting tomorrow)

    The bio thread was locked? why? (it wasn't me!)
     
  17. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    Actually, there were only 63 voters, which works out to 3 voters per team.
     
  18. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    Yeah, I assumed you were away for the weekend, so I have been waiting for you to reply to my openning thoughts. I think I was pretty fair there.

    No worries either way. For the 4th sereis in a row, I'm in tough. Once again, I do beleive I have the better team, but I wouldn't be too broken up if I lost to your team.

    It was in a draft thread.
     
  19. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,471
    Likes Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Oops. Doesn't make much of a difference to me (I just view it as a Hart worthy season for both), but might to some.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2011
  20. seventieslord

    seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    32,106
    Likes Received:
    1,055
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    the gap is significant. I don't personally believe that a GM should get to claim his 1st line is "explosive" when it contains one elite member, one who is average (for a 1st liner), and one who is well below average. You can call that "average", "good", "efficient", "well-constructed"... not explosive. Yes, obviously Regina has the better 1st line.

    Bad? You do us both a disservice. Regina's 2nd line just might be the least impressive part of the team, but it's not bad. Maybe you're being hard on yourself or maybe you're not used to there being 40 teams, but yours is average.

    Dunderdale and Turgeon are pretty much even in terms of impact. Turgeon's offensive resume lacks the goalscoring peak of Dunderdale's (thanks to his PCHA titles) but has significantly better longevity and playmaking ability. Just to remind you that I'm not just posturing here, I should remind you that earlier in this draft I compared Dunderdale to Nieuwendyk in terms of overall value. I still agree with that, and just last series I questioned why Nieuwendyk should even be considered better than Turgeon (inferior offense, better defense = ?).

    Marshall and Cashman are the respective glue guys of their lines. You will recall earlier that when Sturm questioned Marshall's place as a bargain basement 2nd line glue guy, I pointed out that he was passable. He was known as a jack of all trades, and his offensive abilities, though muddied by the weaker league he led, are decent. Cashman's offensive abilities can best be described as decent as well. The difference is, Marshall was a physical guy, while Cashman was universally hated and feared. Don't underestimate the importance of a proven, universally regarded puck winner. In a vaccuum the two would be very close. In the context of providing impact to the line, Cashman wins hands down. Marshall provides little that his linemates don't already provide. Cashman provides the puckwinning and protection Turgeon needs in order to be effective, otherwise there would be a risk of Turgeon's game not translating well to this higher level.

    Stanfield and Adams are there to provide the secondary offensive for these units, while at the same time not being just one-dimensional. Adams provides some more physicality, puckwinning and toughness. Stanfield brings defensive responsibility and some bodychecking. Both provide hustle. Stanfield's best offensive seasons on a percentage basis: 89, 78, 76, 75, 74, 51. Adams: 100, 91, 86, 85, 67, 62. Advantage Adams. To provide greater context to that, Adams finished top-2 in scoring on his team six times (1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2). Stanfield was never among his team's top-3 scorers (4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7) You are actually getting way, way carried away with regards to Stanfield's actual offensive potential here. Let me explain further.

    So far we've been talking in terms of total points as opposed to even strength. This benefits Stanfield because he was actually on the ice for 66% of his team's PP goals in his career - what do you think that did for his point totals? He's not on the ice for 66% of PPs here, and he's not playing for a PP that has, by far, the two most powerful offensive weapons in the league, like he had in Boston. (I realize every player sinks into a lower role here, but with Stanfield the gap between "real life" and "ATD" roles is so huge that it warrants mention)

    In his career, Stanfield averaged 40 adjusted ESP per 80 games. And this cuts off 107 games from before expansion. Guess how many Regina's 3rd liner Mel Bridgman had.... that's right, 40! Despite being a 3rd-liner in Philadelphia, and over 107 more games. What about 29-37-year old post-expansion Bob Nevin? 41. And much more prior to that. Stanfield's top-20 seasons in ESP are 12th, 12th, 19th. Nevin's are 9th, 11th, 11th, 16th. Oliver's are 3rd, 7th, 7th, 18th, 19th. So then, what makes Stanfield, a 2nd liner, better than any of Regina's 3rd liners? Let's recap:

    - He was about as strong offensively at even strength as Mel Bridgman, significantly below Bob Nevin and Murray Oliver.
    - He was a "good" defensive player, like Oliver or Bridgman. Nevin was a great defensive player.
    - He rarely killed penalties. Oliver and Nevin are two of the most heavily-used PK forwards of all-time. Bridgman is behind them both at 31% usage, but that's still just a little bit more than Stanfield's 9%. Good thing he's not killing penalties for you... oh wait...
    - He was more physical than Oliver and probably Nevin, but not anywhere near Bridgman in this regard.
    - It's minor compared to the above, but he was not a captain. Neither was Oliver, but Nevin and Bridgman have a combined 11 years captaincy experience.

    Anyway, point is that Jack Adams is significantly better offensively and therefore significantly better overall. He was a catalyst and Stanfield was not.

    (You must be wondering, if Cashman played on the Bruins and seventies admits he has modest talent, certainly he wasn't among their top scorers very often, either. Well, actually, you'd be surprised. 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6 is what his line looks like, and this is despite getting relatively little PP time: 32%, less than half what Stanfield received. And when he did, it was 2nd unit time.)

    I'd sure like to know why! Both are constructed to be decent 3rd offensive lines while not sacrificing defense (you can argue yours is the opposite, sure.... but same thing, really)

    I don't know, really, who to compare to whom logically, as I avoid position-by-position comparisons unless they make perfect sense. In this case I'm going to do it that way as all three players on each line are of similar ilk - neither pure offensive nor defensive players.

    Hebenton vs. Nevin: Yes, Hebenton has some decent goals finishes. (4th, 8th, 10th) I care more about points. In a career at around the same time as Nevin's, his best points percentages are 68, 60, 58, 56, 52, 50. Nevin's are 79, 69, 64, 61, 58, 55. (and actually three more over 50) - decided edge Nevin. However, it's important at this point to talk about ES because neither is going to be on the PP. I already mentioned Nevin was 9th, 11th, 11th, 16th in ES points. Hebenton's 4 best years: 14th, 20th, 24th, 25th. No comparison offensively. Defensively, I have demonstrated Nevin has great evidence of both even strength and penalty killing defensive prowess at all stops in his career, leading to successful teams at three of them, including two Stanley Cups. Hebenton did not contribute to any team success whatsoever. This is a slam dunk for Nevin, no question.

    Laprade vs. Oliver: I respect that Laprade is in the HHOF and I think it has to do with his defense. It sure isn't for his offense: His best offensive percentage seasons: 78, 65, 64, 56, 55, 45. Oliver's marginally higher, with 78, 77, 77, 60, 55, 53. Oliver's ES offense was much better, though, as he was in the top-7 three times. I don't have those figures for Laprade but I am pretty confident he didn't come close to achieving that. Both were small, non-physical, bad-team players. Oliver was good defensively and a very good penalty killer. Laprade was great defensively and a great penalty killer. The offensive edge Oliver holds is very similar to the defensive edge Laprade holds. They are about equal as players, and this is why it puzzles so many that Laprade is in the hall.

    Mahovlich vs. Bridgman: Offensively, the edge goes to Mahovlich. Even if you disregard his two years as Lafleur's center at the height of his dominance (and you should), he still averaged 47 adjusted ESP per 80 games. That is a decent edge over Bridgman. I can also admit that Mahovlich is a better penalty killer. That was his specialty, along with faceoffs. But at ES, there is nothing to really suggest that either is better defensively, though Bridgman does have the selke votes in that one year. Mahovlich is one player who was able to specialize as a PKer thanks to his reach and faceoff ability, but I question whether that translated to ES, especially since he was criticized often for a lackadaisical attitude (in stark contrast with Bridgman's no-nonsense leadership). Bridgman was actually used to check the opposition's best players throughout his career - was Mahovlich? Bridgman was one of the league's toughest, dirtiest and most feared players in his time, and aside from speed, had no weakness as a player. Did anyone ever call Mahovlich physical or tough? He fought a decent amount (about once per 20 games) and though his career record is extremely incomplete, his 0-5-3 record at dropyourgloves.com doesn't look promising. It's not often I would say toughness and intangibles outweigh an 18% offensive gap, but Bridgman is that type of player and this is one of those cases. These two are about even in overall impact, with all things considered.

    On a side note that is not really important, this is one of the few 3rd lines that I can claim to have a toughness advantage over. Nevin and Oliver are about the same as Hebenton and Laprade, but Bridgman has a huge advantage over Mahovlich, size be damned.

    With Nevin holding the only clear edge (and it is a massive one), Regina's 3rd line is poised to be more effective in this series. Let's not forget that it has a much weaker 1st line to contain than McGuire's 3rd line does.

    On that note, if we're playing the checking line game and going 3rd vs. 1st, let's review the matchups at center. Laprade is the best defensive player on the Monsters' 3rd line and Messier the best offensive player on Regina's 1st. Adjusted size gives Mess a 3 inch, 30 pound advantage over Laprade, who wasn't known for any physicality or toughness to compensate. Messier was physicality and toughness personified. Laprade had a way of being "tricky" defensively, but let's be reality, this is a massive mismatch. Messier, who gets significantly better come playoff time, is going to have his way with Laprade, who played in just two playoffs.

    On the other hand, Ullman is a containable player for Murray Oliver. Oliver's just average defensively for a 3rd liner, but Ullman is just average offensively for a 1st liner. The two are the exact same size. There's no mismatch here. Ullman, the better player, will score some points and be effective. That's peanuts compared to what Mess and his cohorts will do. It's also worth noting that Mel Bridgman will be up against Bathgate. Isolated quotes about fisticuffs aside, Bathgate was a pacifist who didn't like the rough stuff. Bridgman made a living being a dirty [email protected] who took star players off their games. Bathgate is the RW target he's been licking his chops for all playoffs. Look out.

    It's not substantial, but you do have the edge. Bourque is Bourque. What better "peak" are you referring to? Green's 2nd team all-star? Day has a 1st team as voted by the GMs pre-1931. He was also on the "3rd" team two other times - 1934 and 1937, the only two seasons in his career that we have beyond top-4 in voting. Your misuse of the all-star and norris voting in a couple of Green's seasons has also been well-documented during this draft, as well. Yes, Bourque is much better than Clancy. Day is also much better than Green. You hold an edge on the first pairing, but it is not substantial.

    Even though I have always been a bit of a Stuart Skeptic, there is a chance that he's the 3rd-best defenseman here. I agree. Substantial edge? I laugh. Neilson and Reise are both better than Egan, and it's not close. More on that later. These pairings are about even.

    defensemen, overall in this series:

    Bourque
    Clancy
    Stuart
    Day
    Neilson
    Reise
    Green
    Egan
    Redden
    Randall
    Watson
    Buller

    (mostly) Agree, agree.

    It's tough placing Randall's value but I think it's more than "just a really solid player". Yeah, he's probably better than Watson.

    Redden was a legit #1 for six seasons and a top pairing guy for nine, all on good teams. He has an edge on Buller, and it's bigger than Randall's edge on Watson.

    I think that ours is better overall, but it's not going to be a difference maker.



    Don't forget coaching. Shero >> Chernyshev/Pilous.

    Also wanted to touch on a couple of special teams concerns about the Monsters, namely the credentials of Stanfield and Hebenton. Stanfield was on the ice for just 9% of his team's PPGA in his career - this is an ATD penalty killer? For Hebenton, the GF/GA stats don't exist but we can at least look at his SH scoring totals. With 8 career points on the penalty kill (0.012 per game), we can roughly guess that he killed penalties about 62% as often as Bob Nevin, which is about 28%. It's decent, it's only a bit less than our 4th PK forward, Bridgman, except Bridgman was successful at it, and Hebenton apparently wasn't if you go by NYR's defensive results. Basically, our 4th PK forward is better than their 3rd, and their 4th should not be an ATD penalty killer at all.

    :laugh:

    rather than address this within the 2nd pairing comparisons, this deserved its own reply at the bottom.

    You know that feeling you'd get when Coach Gipper would proclaim, "Brodeur is the best goalie of all-time, better than both Hasek and Roy, and perhaps even the best player of all-time"? Well, I have that feeling now. You know how seventieslord just loves being right. Well, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to easily be 100% right about something. I appreciate this.

    First, let me start by pointing out that practically everyone who has commented on Egan or on any of your series throughout the playoffs, seems to have a very good grip on what type of player he is in the ATD (and might have been in the NHL, too) - an offensive specialist. You seem to be the only one who won't accept this.

    We are talking about a player who, despite being in the top-4 in points by defensemen five times, was only a 2nd all-star team once, and in a rather weak year - 1942 - in which Tom Anderson was the leading vote-getter.

    His defensive ability is largely unsubstantiated, particularly in this "quotes or it didn't happen" world we live in. In fact, Egan's defensive ability in the ATD is among the least-substantiated in the entire draft. The disparity between his point rankings and his all-star recognition is very, very troubling.

    It goes beyond the postseason all-star teams, though:

    - In 1944, Egan was 2nd in scoring among blueliners and did not make the postseason AST. The 5th-7th-highest vote-getters for those seasons are known, and Egan is not among them (they are Hollett, Quackenbush and Crawford) - Egan would have been 8th at best.

    - In 1947, Egan was 1st in scoring among blueliners and did not make the postseason AST. The 1947 ASG played that November, featured the 4 defensemen who made the AST, plus Butch Bouchard as the 5th. Toronto, the previous cup winners, it would stand to reason, had at least a couple of the top-7 defensemen that season as well, considering they had Barilko, Mortson and Thompson. So where was Egan this year among all defensemen? 8th at best, I'd say.

    - In 1949, Egan was again 1st in defense scoring and did not make the postseason AST. The ASG held that November featured 6 defensemen including the 4 that made the AST, plus Egan and Goldham as 5th/6th-best non-Toronto blueliners. Goldham was considered, at best, the NHL's 5th-best defenseman, but if we're being realistic about how Toronto's #1, Thomson, is perceived by history, as well as Goldham, he was probably 7th.

    On the other hand, Leo Reise was legitimately voted among the game's four best defensemen twice (3rd, 4th) despite placing just 6th in scoring among blueliners those seasons. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what that means. He followed this up with two ASG appearances, which put him somewhere between 5th and 9th in the league those years. He was also a top-pairing blueliner on a cup winner twice during this time.

    Your revisionist assertion that Egan is definitely better than Reise must be based solely on offensive stats; otherwise, I cannot ascertain where this could have come from.

    Reise received significantly more recognition as an overall player than Egan, despite being inferior offensively and therefore much less noticeable (the connection between points and ASTs for blueliners throughout history is quite obvious)

    What does all this mean in comparing their components as players? Reise's physical game is much more substantiated than Egan's, though it is clear Egan was also very physical. Offensively, Egan is much better. But defensively, in order to have the edge as an overall player that he clearly has (and to suggest otherwise is hogwash revisionism), Reise has to be considerably better defensively than Egan. Don't forget, either, that Reise's greatness actually contributed to team success. Egan's did not.

    Hey, I'm sorry that you took him at 325th. He's not that good. I mean, his offensive prowess and physicality have always been known quantities, and Reise has been largely a mystery until this draft, and he was still taken 91-255 picks earlier than Egan in each of the past 6 drafts. Canon ≠ a good argument, I know. And we should overturn canon anytime new info warrants it. But do you know something that all these past and current GMs didn't/don't? Your bio for Egan sure doesn't make it look like you do. The guy belongs in the late 400s. There is absolutely no way he's better than Reise. (nor is Green, for that matter.)

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

    Basically, there are small edges on the blueline (very small in this case) and in net for McGuire's. However, their forwards are a complete mess. Not one of their four lines is better. This should be clear as day. The first line is good but not nearly as good as ours. Their 3rd line is also strong but not as good overall as ours. Their 2nd and 4th lines are average at best, and are awfully messy. Regina's incredible edge at forward, coupled with the fact that they will be better coached, will ensure their victory. You can't get to the finals with a forward group looking like that.... c'mon!
     
  21. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    The Cs and RWs basically even out, so the difference in the line comes down to Johnny Bucyk vs. Alf Smith. That doesn't make it a significant gap.

    I agree that Dunderdale and Turgeon are about even in terms of offensive impact. I don't think Dunderdale is much better defensively, but he does have a solid physical edge.

    I'm not sure why you chose to compare them this way. Stanfield and Cashman played on the same team, so they are an easy comparison. Also, Marshall and Adams played in the pre-consolidation era, so they are easlier to compare aswell.

    Fred Stanfield vs. Wayne Cashman
    - both guys are the glue guys
    - Cashman did provide elite puck-winning and toughness, but he provided basically nothing else
    - Stanfield provides lesser amoungs of both, but he also provides better offense and better defense.
    - overall, Stanfield brings a lot more to the table, and that makes up for Cashman's one elite aspect.

    Jack Marshall vs. Jack Adams
    - both guys are the secondary offensive producers
    - Adams provides good offense and solid physical play
    - Marhsall provides slightly less offense, the same physical play, and better defensive play
    - overall, they are pretty close to equal

    Agreed that Bob Nevin is better than Hebenton.

    Pete Mahovlich vs. Mel Bridgeman
    - Mahovlich brings much better offense and defense
    - Bridgeman brings more toughness and grit
    - don't let Bridgeman's mustache fool you, he's not in Mahovlich's league

    Edgar Laprade vs. Murray Oliver
    - both provide similar grit
    - Oliver brings better offense
    - Laprade brings significantly better defense

    You are ignoring an important part of this match-up; the defense pairings.

    Bridgeman's ability to take people off their games won't effect Bathgate. In an erarlier series, you jumped in and said that Tony Leswick couldn't do the job, why would you think Bridgeman can?

    Even if you do beleive Reise is better than Egan, the gap between them is small. The gap between Hod Stuart and Jim Neilson is pretty big.

    Only changes I would make is move Raise down below Green and Egan, and move Watson down to the bottom.

    Agreed that my PK forwards below the top 2 are weak. That's why my 1 and 2 are split up. With either Laprage or Mahovlich, and Bourque/Green or Stuart/Randall, I've got solid enough PK units.

    Considering your PP isn't very good, I'm not that worried.

    I never said he wasn't an offensive specialist.

    I did say there was very little evidence that he was poor defensively. Actually, there is more evidence that he was good defensively than there was that he was bad.

    Reise's 4 best years are probably better than Egan's best 4, Egan actually had a reall solid 10 year career. Reise did basically nothing outside those 4 years.
     
  22. overpass

    overpass Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,295
    Likes Received:
    452
    Trophy Points:
    124
    When I saw Dreak's preferred matchups, I thought Messier-Laprade looked like a very bad matchup for him.

    But remember that Laprade was among the last players to get significant amateur credit fo his HOF case. He starred for Port Arthur when they won the Allan Cup, going head to head against Milt Schmidt and outplaying him. Schmidt is at least a Messier-lite type of player, right? So I wouldn't write Laprade off too quickly.
     
  23. Dreakmur

    Dreakmur Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Messages:
    10,242
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    Arena Operator
    Location:
    Orillia, Ontario
    First of all, you don't have to be able to beat somebody up into order to play against them. Just because Messier is bigger and tougher doesn't mean Laprade won't be able to play against him.

    Second, Laprade was not soft. Don't let the Lady Byng recognition fool you. Just because he played clean doesn't mean he didn't play aggressively. Based on anecdotes, Laprade played a style very similar to John Madden - a very aggressive checker who never backed off.
     
  24. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,471
    Likes Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Lady byng definitely didn't mean soft for most of the award's existence. It basically stood for a guy who played very hard but clean hockey, even as late as the 70s when Bucyk won it. Not sure when it changed to the joke of a "most points / least PIMs ratio" award that gave it to cupcakes like Turgeon and Mogilny.
     
  25. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,471
    Likes Received:
    1,710
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    That said, Messier was known for putting all but the strongest checkers on their butts
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"