Bob Cole Semifinals: Kitchener Greenshirts vs. Montréal Victorias

[Sturminator]

past players include: Earl Seibert, Milt Schmidt, Bobby Bauer, Woody Dumart,
Claude Pronovost, Ott Heller, Babe Siebert, George Hainsworth & Howie Meeker
Kitchener Greenshirts
a defensively-responsible opportunistic-scoring squad
with championship-proven, captain-loaded, hardworkers

coaches Dr. Jan Starsi & Karel Gut

Busher Jackson - Frank Nighbor - Boris Mikhailov
FN's takeaway & pass to ES for rush or to fast BJ bull to net 'n backhand or to BM offwing inside shot and netcrasher
Herbie Lewis - Tommy Dunderdale - Odie Cleghorn
speedy passing & defending by HL, stickhandling speed & scoring by TD, rushing puckhandling scoring & physicality by OC
Jiri Holik (A) - Joe Nieuwendyk - Jack Darragh
skating two-way durability by JH, face-offs & stickhandling & responsible play by JN, speed & passing & clutch play by JD
Pud Glass - Cal Gardner - Jimmy Roberts
checking & relentless skilled effort by PG, aggressive checking & passing by CG, intense shadowing & checking & pking by JR
sub forwards: Dick Irvin, Yevgeny Babich

Earl Seibert - Art Coulter (C)
ES rushes & speeds, AC passes & fights; both check hard, move the puck, play a two-way game
Lionel Hitchman (A) - Red Dutton
shutdown D & puckhandling transition by LH, competitive fiery HHOF bodychecking by RD
Bucko McDonald - Flash Hollett
stay-at-home checking & shot blocking by BM, rushes up ice & shots by FH
7th dman: Dunc Munro

Turk Broda
workhorse starter was 1st or 2nd in NHL games played for 8 seasons
Jiri Kralik​

Note: Gardner is a C/LW, Glass, F so the coach could ice a fourth line of Gardner-Irvin-Glass when desired (e.g., when not facing teams with Eddie Shore or Sprague Cleghorn types - which our division has - match-ups that are bankable to involve fighting; Roberts being a great defensive RW/D to sub on the blueline 3rd pairing, McDonald a legit top-4 dman sub option when Dutton or Coulter are in the box with Eddie Shore or Sprague Cleghorn).

PK1: Nighbor, Lewis, Seibert, Hitchman
PK2: Nieuwendyk, Roberts**, Coulter, McDonald
PP1: Nighbor*, Nieuwendyk, Mikhailov, Seibert, Hollett
PP2: Jackson, Dunderdale, Cleghorn, Coulter, Hitchman

* Nighbor was a LW as a star performer in a Stanley Cup championship so he could perform pp duty from there.
** When Irvin starts instead of Roberts, then Holik or Glass capably sub on the 2nd pk unit.

Vs.​

Montreal Victorias

Coach: Fred Shero
Captain: Bobby Clarke
Alternates: Rod Brind'amour, Sprague Cleghorn

Cy Denneny - Bobby Clarke (C) - Joe Mullen
Patrick Marleau - Rod Brind'amour (A) - Vladimir Martinec
Bob Pulford - Marty Walsh - Harry Oliver
Albert Kerr - Nicklas Backstrom - John McKenzie
Mike Ridley, Joe Pavelski

Sprague Cleghorn (A) - Ott Heller
Duncan Keith - Leo Reise, Jr.
Frantisek Tikal - Sandis Ozolinsh
Doug Barkley, Dave Babych

Frank Brimsek
Glenn Resch

PP1: Denneny - Clarke - Martinec - Cleghorn - Ozolinsh
PP2: Marleau - Backstrom - Walsh** - Keith - Ozolinsh*

*likely split some time with Heller, Ozolinsh will likely play 1:30-1:45 of each PP. sometimes full 2 minutes
**normally plays C, but on the PP he will be asked to drive to the front of the net, cause havoc there and score on rebounds

PK1: Pulford - Clarke - Cleghorn - Heller
PK2: Walsh - Brind'amour - Keith - Reise Jr.

PP subs: Brind'amour, Oliver, McKenzie, Heller
PK subs: Marleau, McKenzie, Tikal​

Click to read more...

 

[jarek]

Below are links to all the arguments I have made for this series

Opening arguments:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101187057&postcount=2 (a bit about how line matching might work in this series)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101192355&postcount=4 (into more detail in the 1v1 line matchup, some on coaching and Kitchener's 2nd line)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101194639&postcount=8 (Jackson and Denneny offensive balance)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101195205&postcount=11 (bit on how the matchups will work defensively)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101197275&postcount=12 (concern raised about Kitchener's 1st line strategy)

Regarding Walsh:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101195025&postcount=10 (some on Walsh back checking and offensive peak)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101235131&postcount=14 (some on Walsh back checking and offensive peak)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101238511&postcount=15 (me admitting my mistake.. whoops!)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101239463&postcount=18 (more on Walsh back checking)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101240063&postcount=20 (more on Walsh back checking)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101339609&postcount=27 (more on Walsh back checking)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101341441&postcount=29 (more on Walsh back checking)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101482693&postcount=53 (looking at Walsh assists)

Regarding the discipline and PK:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101269403&postcount=23 (looking at Dutton and Cleghorn PIMs)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101343019&postcount=31 (bunch of stuff, most important is the comparison of two teams in PIMs)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101474393&postcount=51 (Joe Nieuwendyk PKing)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101573201&postcount=111 (closer PK comparison)

Comparisons of defensemen:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101344087&postcount=37

Line comparisons:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101349471&postcount=43 (breaking down offense of Kitchener 2nd line)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101352707&postcount=45 (contains Dreakmur's VsX for 2nd liners + Mullen - Martinec)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101418153&postcount=47 (small concern about 1st lines)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101485177&postcount=57 (concern about Lewis)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101486815&postcount=58 (1st line offense)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101496681&postcount=65 (Nighbor vs. Denneny offense)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101497813&postcount=67 (Clarke vs. Jackson offense)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101499051&postcount=68 (Mullen vs. Mikhailov offense)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101506835&postcount=72 (look at Jackson's playoff scoring during his prime)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101515715&postcount=86 (close look at Dunderdale offense)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101517087&postcount=88 (Cleghorn vs. Martinec offense)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101558705&postcount=108 (Marleau vs. Lewis playoffs)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101605913&postcount=151 (more Nighbor vs. Denneny, looking at how their scoring stacked up against each other)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101610183&postcount=155 (Nighbor vs. Denneny assists per game)

Specifically on Nighbor:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101493477&postcount=61 (look at Nighbor pre-NHL offense)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101553693&postcount=103 (adjusted points Vs1)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101554969&postcount=105 (looking at pre-NHL adjusted points)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101555479&postcount=107 (alternative look at 1915)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101589615&postcount=119 (alternative to Vs1, accounting for Nighbor's outscoring players during his offense leading years)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101600901&postcount=139 (Dreakmur explaining why using a different system for Kitchener's 1st line than the rest of the team might cause issues)

Closing statements:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101567363&postcount=110

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

VI's statements:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101259307&postcount=21
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101591257&postcount=133, my reply here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101591373&postcount=134
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101592309&postcount=137, my reply here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=101592653&postcount=138

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

Geez.. have Nighbor and Clarke ever faced off against each other in the ATD? I think that would be a defensive clinic for the ages to witness!

Congrats to VI on making it to the 2nd round, this looks like it should be a great series!

To start with, I foresee two sets of matchups that should work reasonably well for us, but I'd like everyones' opinions on it.

Number one:

1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, no lineup changes

Clarke and Nighbor would have a serious handful with each other. The thing is, the Nighbor line is so heavily dependent on Nighbor to distribute the puck, that I think Clarke tangling with him will seriously impact the line's ability to generate offense. In the defensive zone, with Clarke dealing with Nighbor and Mullen pestering Seibert, it would be up to Jackson and Mikhailov, neither particularly known for distributing the puck, to make chances for themselves most of the time. Our 1st pairing of Cleghorn and Heller should be up to that task and we would look to Brimsek to make up the rest.

In the offensive zone with this matchup, I think Denneny would be a real factor for us. Obviously Clarke's playmaking would be negated substantially, but Denneny himself would have the option to either pass it to the point where Heller or Cleghorn can take a shot, or to Mullen, or he can shoot the puck himself.

---

In the Brind'amour vs. Dunderdale line matchup, I really believe that Martinec is a good match against Lewis against the left wing lock, specifically because that type of defensive system seems to be more skill based and/or just outmanning the opposition on that side. If Lewis is alone, Martinec is more than skilled enough to get by him most of the time, and if he does get outmanned, again, most of the time he should be able to feather a pass to a streaking Marleau with Brind'amour heading to the front of the net. The speed of Martinec on the right side may also prove a factor in blowing past Lewis before the left wing lock can even get set up from time to time.

On the back check, again, I like Martinec vs. Lewis because Lewis seems like a guy who relied on skill more than brute force to keep the puck on his stick, so Martinec, being much more skilled, should be able to match up well against him. Brind'amour, once the play slows down, should be a good match against Dunderdale, but Dunderdale's speed admittedly may cause some issues. We would look to Keith or Reise to make up the difference there. Marleau, with his speed, should also be a solid match against Cleghorn, with, again, the defensemen making up whatever difference exists.

--

In the battle of the thirds, I don't think there's much to say. Walsh, with his speed and physicality will be a great match against Nieuwendyk, and I'm not sure the rest of that line is going to do much offensively against our D and Brimsek. Should we get the puck with this line in the offensive zone, I think the Greenshirts might have a real hard time retrieving it from Pulford and Walsh.

--

With the 4th lines, I think ours is a lot better offensively and quite frankly, I don't see VI's bringing much beyond physicality and defense. Backstrom's defensive ability is likely at least adequate against whatever skill Gardner possesses, and I don't see Glass or Roberts as guys who will bring too much offensively at all. Now, I do think the Greenshirts 4th line is quite good defensively and overall I don't see this matchup as being much of a factor. Backstrom will do his damage on the PP regardless.

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

The other plan I was thinking of was something along these lines:

Denneny - Clarke - Oliver
Marleau - Walsh - Martinec
Pulford - Brind'amour - Mullen
Kerr - Backstrom - McKenzie

This kind of wastes Clarke's defensive ability, but I think the Brind'amour line would be a solid match against Nighbor. Walsh has proven success against Dunderdale in real life (albeit I could only find one specific game mentioning his work against Dunderdale), so the 2v2 matchup should work quite well for us as well. This would leave the Clarke line to go out and do as they please, for the most part, and I think the Greenshirts would have a real hard time dealing with them.

 

[Sturminator]

Clarke and Nighbor would have a serious handful with each other. The thing is, the Nighbor line is so heavily dependent on Nighbor to distribute the puck, that I think Clarke tangling with him will seriously impact the line's ability to generate offense. In the defensive zone, with Clarke dealing with Nighbor and Mullen pestering Seibert, it would be up to Jackson and Mikhailov, neither particularly known for distributing the puck, to make chances for themselves most of the time. Our 1st pairing of Cleghorn and Heller should be up to that task and we would look to Brimsek to make up the rest.

I can't say I agree with this much, at all. Kitchener's first unit is right there with I'd say Pittsburgh's as the scariest single unit left in the draft. Jackson and Mikhailov are both absolutely capable of making plays and driving an offense. The idea that the line depends on Nighbor's passing is crazy: he is the third best offensive player on the line. I'm also not a fan of Mullen trying to cover Jackson, who is much stronger and faster than his check. Mullen was a reliable (though not special) positional player on defense, but Jackson is a hoss, and I see this as a mismatch. Heller is also easily the weakest of the defensemen out there. Ultimately, I see the matchup of 1st units as being clearly in Kitchener's favor.

Comparing the other units is a bit more interesting. Martinec and Keith are the two best 2nd unit players, and Victoria looks like they will pretty well own the 2nd unit matchup, in general. Herbie Lewis is theoretically a pretty good guy to troll Martinec, but in a LW lock system, I don't think it makes any real difference.

Third units are very interesting to compare...rather similar in approach. Kitchener's 3rd pairing is better, imo, but the lines are rather close, and I could sort of go either way about which side I think would win the matchup of lines on any given day. Small edge to Kitchener on the 3rd unit, overall, imo.

Brimsek is obviously the better overall goalie.

Shero vs. Starsi is probably advantageous to Starsi in a weird sort of way because what Shero's teams were really good at was attacking and shutting down offensive opponents. Against a locking team, Shero's style might not generate as much transition offense, which was a big part of how those Flyers teams scored. So while I think Shero is still the better coach, the advantage here seems to be rather less than it might look like on paper.

 

[jarek]

I can't say I agree with this much, at all. Kitchener's first unit is right there with I'd say Pittsburgh's as the scariest single unit left in the draft. Jackson and Mikhailov are both absolutely capable of making plays and driving an offense. The idea that the line depends on Nighbor's passing is crazy: he is the third best offensive player on the line. I'm also not a fan of Mullen trying to cover Jackson, who is much stronger and faster than his check. Mullen was a reliable (though not special) positional player on defense, but Jackson is a hoss, and I see this as a mismatch. Heller is also easily the weakest of the defensemen out there. Ultimately, I see the matchup of 1st units as being clearly in Kitchener's favor.

Comparing the other units is a bit more interesting. Martinec and Keith are the two best 2nd unit players, and Victoria looks like they will pretty well own the 2nd unit matchup, in general. Herbie Lewis is theoretically a pretty good guy to troll Martinec, but in a LW lock system, I don't think it makes any real difference.

Third units are very interesting to compare...rather similar in approach. Kitchener's 3rd pairing is better, imo, but the lines are rather close, and I could sort of go either way about which side I think would win the matchup of lines on any given day. Small edge to Kitchener on the 3rd unit, overall, imo.

Brimsek is obviously the better overall goalie.

Shero vs. Starsi is probably advantageous to Starsi in a weird sort of way because what Shero's teams were really good at was attacking and shutting down offensive opponents. Against a locking team, Shero's style might not generate as much transition offense, which was a big part of how those Flyers teams scored. So while I think Shero is still the better coach, the advantage here seems to be rather less than it might look like on paper.

I feel like Busher Jackson is being very overrated here. He's not that special offensively, clearly worse than Nighbor IMO. One thing, however, that I did not realize was about Jackson's speed. I suppose that might cause issues for Mullen.

I very much disagree about any coaching advantage that Kitchener might have here. Just how successful were these Czech teams, really? I read the excerpt about the one game where they played "perfect hockey".. but that was one game. Shero coached two cup winners.

Also, just because Kitchener is a team that maybe Shero's system isn't an ideal fit against, I am fairly certain (though I'd have to check) that his teams played against some non-ideal opponents in winning two Stanley Cups.

If we are going to look more closely at the 1v1 matchup, let's see how it would play out. Mullen and Denneny at the point, harassing Seibert and Coulter respectively. I could see Denneny getting out of position once in a while, but Art Coulter is not a player that I fear too much offensively. Still, that may lead to a couple goals against, maybe. Cleghorn and Mikhailov seems like a good match for us (and what a battle that would be!), with Clarke and Nighbor likely effectively neutralizing each other. So, just how overmatched is Heller against Jackson? I could certainly see Jackson leading his team in scoring in this series. So how big would this edge really be? If we see it as a small but distinctive edge to Kitchener, I feel pretty good about that, as I would certainly agree that the overall personnel on the top units is an edge to Kitchener.

However, I think that's where things break down for Kitchener. Odie Cleghorn is a solid enough scorer for a 2nd line, and Dunderdale is likely around comparable as a scorer. However, I think Keith is a good matchup against Cleghorn, and Brind'amour, while he may have issues dealing with Dunderdale's speed, should be a good matchup once the play slows down. I think Kitchener's second unit also faces some issues with playmaking, and I am not convinced that their 2nd defense pair really makes up for that. I think Kitchener will have a hard time dealing with the Marleau-Martinec transition on turnovers were these units to face each other.

That also brings me to the point that other than Seibert and Hollett, Kitchener has a glaring flaw on their defense in terms of offense. It is a solid defensive unit to be sure, but unlike Montreal, which has Keith as a puck moving asset on the 2nd pair, Kitchener's 2nd pair distinctly lacks any meaningful offensive ability, and this will surely hurt them in ES play, and particularly on the 2nd PP.

 

[jarek]

Just read again the point about Kitchener's 3rd unit being better than ours. Do you really have that little respect for Walsh? I think he's clearly better than Nieuwendyk personally, with Pulford also being a better player than Holik and Oliver/Darragh being similar in their roles (Darragh getting the nod over Oliver for his playoff scoring certainly).

 

[Sturminator]

I feel like Busher Jackson is being very overrated here. He's not that special offensively, clearly worse than Nighbor IMO.

Jackson was good enough to win a scoring title in an era of stiff competition. If you believe VsX, Jackson was on about the same level as Bobby Clarke as a scorer, and I'd put Nighbor on about that level, as well, so they seem roughly even. At any rate, the idea that losing production from Nighbor to Clarke's checking would somehow torpedo Kitchener's offense on the top unit seems like a stretch.

I very much disagree about any coaching advantage that Kitchener might have here. Just how successful were these Czech teams, really? I read the excerpt about the one game where they played "perfect hockey".. but that was one game. Shero coached two cup winners.

They schooled the Soviets twice in the late 70's and won World Championships with inferior on-paper teams.

 

[Sturminator]

Just read again the point about Kitchener's 3rd unit being better than ours. Do you really have that little respect for Walsh? I think he's clearly better than Nieuwendyk personally, with Pulford also being a better player than Holik and Oliver/Darragh being similar in their roles (Darragh getting the nod over Oliver for his playoff scoring certainly).

I think there are some questions to be asked about Walsh's checking ability in the six man game (he simply played very little six man hockey) and his offensive style (he seems to have been a net-crasher type), which doesn't seem to fit well next to the uncreative Pulford. I also think you generally overrate Walsh's offensive ability, which seems to have peaked only briefly.

 

[jarek]

Jackson was good enough to win a scoring title in an era of stiff competition. If you believe VsX, Jackson was on about the same level as Bobby Clarke as a scorer, and I'd put Nighbor on about that level, as well, so they seem roughly even. At any rate, the idea that losing production from Nighbor to Clarke's checking would somehow torpedo Kitchener's offense on the top unit seems like a stretch.

I do think it would hurt their offense significantly, in much the same way as it would hurt ours. The difference is that our Denneny was a very good playmaker himself and he has some options on the attack. If Jackson is as good as you say (and I am not saying he isn't), in a first line matchup, I think he'd have to do a fair amount of the work himself as the rest of the unit would be very well checked IMO.

They schooled the Soviets twice in the late 70's and won World Championships with inferior on-paper teams.

Twice, as in, two games? I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed breakdown of those WC wins.

 

[Sturminator]

I do think it would hurt their offense significantly, in much the same way as it would hurt ours. The difference is that our Denneny was a very good playmaker himself and he has some options on the attack. If Jackson is as good as you say (and I am not saying he isn't), in a first line matchup, I think he'd have to do a fair amount of the work himself as the rest of the unit would be very well checked IMO.

I don't see why the checking of Mikhailov is anything special here, unless you know something about Denneny's two-way ability that I don't. I also don't know why you think Jackson and Mikhailov weren't good playmakers.

 

[jarek]

I think there are some questions to be asked about Walsh's checking ability in the six man game (he simply played very little six man hockey) and his offensive style (he seems to have been a net-crasher type), which doesn't seem to fit well next to the uncreative Pulford. I also think you generally overrate Walsh's offensive ability, which seems to have peaked only briefly.

The same questions, then, that should be asked about anyone who played exclusively 7 man hockey. Unless you can show me actual evidence that he struggled in the 6 man game (and the only evidence I've seen is circumstantial evidence that he didn't, or was at worst, a non-factor), I think the whole "not all eras are created equal" thing applies here.

As far as his offense, yes, he peaked for about 4 years, but it was one of the most dominant 4 year peaks of all time. If you compare that to Nieuwendyk, I would argue that Walsh likely had at least 3 offensive years better than anything Nieuwendyk ever did. Yes, Nieuwendyk had a very long career, but at least to me, that means very little, as many of those years were not statistically significant.

Interestingly, Nieuwendyk is one of those guys I'd lump into the playoff disappointment pile. He had one excellent year where he won the Conn Smythe, but the drop off after that is precipitous.

 

[jarek]

I don't see why the checking of Mikhailov is anything special here, unless you know something about Denneny's two-way ability that I don't. I also don't know why you think Jackson and Mikhailov weren't good playmakers.

Because the numbers don't back it up. They were shoot first players. I'm not saying they are devoid of playmaking, but it was clearly not their forte. Can you show me otherwise?

Why are we talking about Mikhailov and Denneny as if they are going to check each other? They won't. That's not how hockey works, as I understand it. The responsibility to check these players will largely rest with the defensemen, Cleghorn and Coulter respectively, I believe.

 

[jarek]

One more thing I forgot to mention. VI claims that his first line will deploy the left wing lock by utilizing Nighbor at LW during the setup of the strategy. However, how effective is this really going to be? I get Nighbor can play LW, but won't this leave guys in a mess positionally should they get beaten? I think this would deteriorate the defensive value of that line somewhat.

 

[Sturminator]

The same questions, then, that should be asked about anyone who played exclusively 7 man hockey.

No, the questions here are quite specific to the center position, which is the one most affected by the change.

Unless you can show me actual evidence that he struggled in the 6 man game (and the only evidence I've seen is circumstantial evidence that he didn't, or was at worst, a non-factor), I think the whole "not all eras are created equal" thing applies here.

You know as well as I do what the evidence consists of. Your theory that Walsh wanted to retire right around the time the six man game was introduced in the east is interesting, but not more interesting, I think, than the opinion of the press at that time.

As far as his offense, yes, he peaked for about 4 years, but it was one of the most dominant 4 year peaks of all time.

Wut?

 

[jarek]

No, the questions here are quite specific to the center position, which is the one most affected by the change.

If we're going to start making arguments like this, then I might as well question the ability to even play the game by the likes of Dutton, Shore, Cleghorn, etc.. all these guys would have been banned from the game pretty quickly.

Walsh played 7 man hockey for the better part of around 8 seasons. He played parts of one season in the 6 man game where he was mostly relegated to being a spare. Moreover, there is enough evidence in the bio that I made that he was a smart, very hard working type that would have adjusted to the game, given time.

Basically, your argument is that Walsh could not survive playing modern hockey. That's fine. Neither could at least 50% of the players we draft, most likely.

You know as well as I do what the evidence consists of. Your theory that Walsh wanted to retire right around the time the six man game was introduced in the east is interesting, but not more interesting, I think, than the opinion of the press at that time.

To answer this, I will take the quote directly out of my bio.

One other thing I'd like to point out is that the paper that claimed Walsh struggled with the 6 man game was the Saskatoon Phoenix, a city that the NHA never had any involvement with, at all, nor is that city anywhere near any city the NHA had a team in. Additionally, the article was written nearly 10 years after Walsh was done his playing career.

What is the likelihood that whoever wrote this ever actually watched Walsh play? It was written 10 years after his playing career, in a city far away from any Walsh would have played in. His argument was that "Walsh didn't last long in the 6 man game". Yes, that's true. He also didn't supply any specific reasons, only inferences. He didn't claim to hold any first hand knowledge of why Walsh exited hockey in the fashion that he did.

Quite frankly, I give this article very little credibility. A player of Walsh's calibre would likely have had many talk about him if he was such a disaster in the 6 man game. As far as we know, this is the only person who ever said anything about it, 10 years after the fact.

Wut?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=24856640&postcount=143

Check out some of the tables 70s posted near the end there. It's not perfect, but it demonstrates the sheer dominance of 2 of Walsh's seasons.

May I ask why you are defending VI's team so vehemently? It would be nice to get some third parties to express their opinions on this series from our point of view!

 

[jarek]

Just looking over the facts again, yes, I was overselling Walsh when I said he had one of the most dominant 4 year peaks of all time. I apologize.

 

[Sturminator]

If we're going to start making arguments like this, then I might as well question the ability to even play the game by the likes of Dutton, Shore, Cleghorn, etc.. all these guys would have been banned from the game pretty quickly.

Walsh played 7 man hockey for the better part of around 8 seasons. He played parts of one season in the 6 man game where he was mostly relegated to being a spare. Moreover, there is enough evidence in the bio that I made that he was a smart, very hard working type that would have adjusted to the game, given time.

Basically, your argument is that Walsh could not survive playing modern hockey. That's fine. Neither could at least 50% of the players we draft, most likely.

No, my argument here is that the skills of a modern center were not likely a part of his game. Whatever defensive skill he may have had as a seven man center, I think it would be rather less (or his offensive game rather less, as he wouldn't be able to hang around the goal nearly as much) in the six man game, which he hardly played. The question here is not whether or not Walsh can play six man hockey (all players can adapt), but rather how much value is lost when he has to make the switch.

He didn't make this switch with any evident success during his actual career. The reasons for that are uncertain, but the simple fact is that there are lingering questions about his conversion to six man hockey and how his skills would translate in the six man game.

 

[Sturminator]

May I ask why you are defending VI's team so vehemently? It would be nice to get some third parties to express their opinions on this series from our point of view!

This is not me being vehement.

 

[jarek]

No, my argument here is that the skills of a modern center were not likely a part of his game. Whatever defensive skill he may have had as a seven man center, I think it would be rather less (or his offensive game rather less, as he wouldn't be able to hang around the goal nearly as much) in the six man game, which he hardly played. The question here is not whether or not Walsh can play six man hockey (all players can adapt), but rather how much value is lost when he has to make the switch.

He didn't make this switch with any evident success during his actual career. The reasons for that are uncertain, but the simple fact is that there are lingering questions about his conversion to six man hockey and how his skills would translate in the six man game.

So we're going to elect not to give him the benefit of the doubt because of a season where he was largely relegated as a spare? How about the players that exclusively played 7 man hockey, never making the transition to 6 man hockey? How about Cyclone Taylor, who in his attempt to play 6 man hockey, failed spectacularly (granted, it was one game)?

Also, if you go through the bio, I have provided many detailed accounts of his play. I read nothing that suggests he wouldn't have been just as great in 6 man hockey because the way he played the game suggests exactly that. In terms of back checking, he definitely seemed to buy into the idea of going back deep into his own zone to help out the defense more often than what I could call the average center would have. He did this, and still put up the numbers that he did. I don't know what else I can put forward here to ease your mind regarding this concern.

Of all the players I can think of that should be question marks regarding their ability to transition to 6 man hockey, Marty Walsh would be among the last of them.

As far as the role of the rover in 7 man hockey, if an argument you want to put forth is that offensively Walsh may not have been as effective, would the elimination of the rover not have affected his opponents just as much when it comes to defensive play? Walsh would have had more room to work with and his linemates less trouble getting him the puck. Moreover, offensively, the elimination of the rover would have meant one fewer option on the attack, so the defensive burden of the center would have been lightened in that regard.

 

[Sturminator]

In terms of back checking, he definitely seemed to buy into the idea of going back deep into his own zone to help out the defense more often than what I could call the average center would have. He did this, and still put up the numbers that he did. I don't know what else I can put forward here to ease your mind regarding this concern.

Going deep into one's own zone to collect the puck and bring it up was often the task given to a team's best offensive player due to the early game's heavy emphasis on skating and stickhandling. Walsh going deep into his own zone may not mean quite what you want it to mean.

 

[jarek]

Going deep into one's own zone to collect the puck and bring it up was often the task given to a team's best offensive player due to the early game's heavy emphasis on skating and stickhandling. Walsh going deep into his own zone may not mean quite what you want it to mean.

Where did you get this from? That's the first I've heard of this. That being said, it is all summarized in Walsh's bio anyways:

"If you don't keep away from these nets, I will give you something that will send you to the dressing room."

"I'll stick right here just as long as I see fit to do so."

Such was the dialogue which, during the overtime period of the Ottawa-Canadien game on Saturday last, passed between Jack Laviolette, the famous point man of the visitors, and Marty Walsh, the dashing center forward of the Ottawas. Two minutes later Walsh was again wedged within two feet of Vezina, batting and slashing at everything that came his way. Suddenly the puck slid out from Darragh's stick, caromed against Walsh and plunked in the twine behind the French goalkeeper, thus winning for Ottawa the hardest match fought in ottawa for many seasons.

That's how the Kingston "phenom" gets most of his goals. As a rule Marty isn't a showy player. He cannot skate like Taylor and hasn't been blessed with the beautiful foot work of the lightning-like Kerr. He isn't as spectacular as Ridpath and at times he looks as though he were going to drop. Many, in fact, have been foolish enough to insinuate that Walsh isn't worthy of the position, which for four seasons he has occupied. But on Saturday last Marty slashed Poulin and was banished for five minutes. The Ottawa defence was demoralized, their attack seemed to melt to pieces, and before the Kingstonian's penalty had expired Canadiens had tied the score. "Oh for Marty," sighed Manager Pete Green in despair. Then another figure darted out from behind the penalty box; Walsh got back into action and Canadiens were repulsed. In the overtime Walsh was in a class by himself. His activity eventually had its reward the goa' that settled the fate of the tricolor team really coming as the result of his tactics in close quarters.

Russell Bowie calls him "Stick-around" Walsh, a name which his recent work has earned him. Marty now leads the N.H.A. in goalgetting, showing his true form in Tuesday's match when he sidestepped through the Renfrew defense for six of the most beautiful goals ever scored. To Walsh they came like taking candy from a baby. Marty's checking back has rescued the Ottawa defence from many a perilous position this winter. He is always there with the poke and jab when the rubber is dangerously near the peerless Lesueur. Walsh, owing to illness, was not in his best form in 1910. He has "come back" in earnest, however, and will probably be the unanimous choice for the center position on the All-Canadian seven. Marty gets many a nasty jar for the chances which he takes in loafing around the opposing net, Glass, Lalonde, Mallen and others often warning their defence men to watch him. He has never yet been forced to leave the ice for good, however, the most serious hockey injury sustained by the former football star being a fractured ankle which he received when "Doc" Scott fell on top of him in an International League match at Sault Ste. Marie five seasons since. Marty is one of the few Kingstonians who has made good in the "big show".

I suspect Sturminator is among the harshest of Walsh's detractors, I'd love to hear the opinions of others as well to try to get a more moderated picture of what people think.

All that being said, even if we are to believe Walsh's effectiveness is lessened by playing modern hockey.. his opponent will be Joe Nieuwendyk, someone that Walsh should be more than capable of handling. Nieuwendyk isn't someone to be feared offensively here, especially in the playoffs, and he has little help offensively (Joe, that is), whereas our Walsh has a dangerous combination on the transition with Oliver. There is also Bob Pulford who, if ever the line is in danger, I trust to help escape such trouble.

 

[VanIslander]

A few obvious things to be said about comments initially made in jarek's first eleven posts:

• Joe Nieuwendyk is one of the most effective face-off men in NHL history (certainly in this series); moreover, Joe was 3rd in goals with 10 and tied for first in powerplay goals in the Flames Stanley Cup championship; Joe was top-3 in Stars goals, 2nd in pp goals in the Stars Game 6 Stanley Cup Finals run the year after his Conn Smythe. To call a guy who was an impact player on FOUR Stanley Cup Finals teams (incl. three cups) as somehow to be labelled as a nonplayoff performer is mind-boggling. (Jarek, please don't grab at straws.) JN was a playoff performer in several important deep playoff runs, including three Stanley Cups (Lou L speaks of his importance to a Devils win in the write-up I linked).
  
• Frank Nighbor ought to be able to handle backchecking duties as his top priority once the puck is turned over. Should this even be a question? (let alone repeated three times already on this board by the same poster?) To suggest Nighbor couldn't handle backchecking responsibilities once the puck is turned over is absurd;
  
• Sprague Cleghorn on the Montreal Victorias is a penalty-laden force who can easily be removed from play by Dutton or Coulter; Kitchener is designed to be able to ice its third pairing as 2nd pairing guys (that's why they were drafted early: Hollett ought to see a lot of 2nd pairing duty in a series with Sprague Cleghorn. Is there a bigger hothead than Sprague?).
  
• All the times Sprague is in the box, will Tikal or Ozolinsh play top-4 minutes? This is a key question against an opponent DESIGNED to take on Eddie Shore and Sprague Ceghorn types. Kitchener is built to handle Montreal in this respect.
  
• I still love Marleau yet continue to maintain he isn't an impact top-6er unless her has an elite passer to feed him the puck by the crease for his soft hands release (as JT has done many times during his heyday); I don't buy him as a slot shooter, as has been claimed last round, and him and Brindy as crease vultures doesn't bode well for the transition game, against a team designed to play two-men deep, one forward mid-ice to "lock" automatically on turnovers the middle third of the ice.
  
• Hedberg & I took a lot of heat playing Walsh as a 4th line center in a past all-time draft, so having his unprecedent position as a third liner ought deservedly to be questioned. He has never been drafted anywhere near Nieuwendyk, and based on their histories, hopefully they never will. Walsh is a marginal ATDer whereas Joe is clearly a Bottom-6 all-time great (not a top-6er as he has sometimes been drafted as). Both bring all-time great intangibles, to various degrees.
  
• Brind'amour and Denneny on the top-6 of Montreal are slower than every forward on speedy Kitchener, only McDonald as the stay-at-home blueliner on the third pairing as comparison in lack of footspeed.

 

[Dreakmur]

A few obvious things to be said about comments initially made in jarek's first eleven posts:

• Joe Nieuwendyk is one of the most effective face-off men in NHL history (certainly in this series); moreover, Joe was 3rd in goals with 10 and tied for first in powerplay goals in the Flames Stanley Cup championship; Joe was top-3 in Stars goals, 2nd in pp goals in the Stars Game 6 Stanley Cup Finals run the year after his Conn Smythe. To call a guy who was an impact player on FOUR Stanley Cup Finals teams (incl. three cups) as somehow to be labelled as a nonplayoff performer is mind-boggling. (Jarek, please don't grab at straws.) JN was a playoff performer in several important deep playoff runs, including three Stanley Cups (Lou L speaks of his importance to a Devils win in the write-up I linked).

• 
  
  Nieuwendyk is at best the 2nd best face off man in the series. Brind'Amour played at te same time as nieuwendyk, and had a better percentage. Bobby Clarke, I think is better than both, but that's harder to quantify.
  
  

  [*] Sprague Cleghorn on the Montreal Victorias is a penalty-laden force who can easily be removed from play by Dutton or Coulter; Kitchener is designed to be able to ice its third pairing as 2nd pairing guys (that's why they were drafted early: Hollett ought to see a lot of 2nd pairing duty in a series with Sprague Cleghorn. Is there a bigger hothead than Sprague?).

  
  Might want to look at cleghorn's penalty totals. Yeah, he has a few high profile events on his resume, but if you are looking for a guy to take more penalties, you don't have to search too far to find one in red dutton.
  
  Before just looking at top 10s remember dutton played post consolidation and Cleghorn played pre consolidation.
  
  

  [*]Brind'amour and Denneny on the top-6 of Montreal are slower than every forward on speedy Kitchener, only McDonald as the stay-at-home blueliner on the third pairing as comparison in lack of footspeed.

  
  I suppose it's a good thing we're playing hockey and not having a race. Different guys have different jobs to do.

 

[jarek]

I will touch on the rest later, but one thing I wanted to point out is that Red Dutton is more of a penalty liability than Cleghorn ever was, or at worst, they are equal.

2.06 PIMs per game vs. 2.15, but Dutton led his league 4 times in PIMs as opposed to Cleghorn's single time. Let's not pretend that Kitchener doesn't have some penalty magnets themselves, and as far as I'm concerned, our PK is a hell of a lot better than Kitchener's.

 

[Sturminator]

Where did you get this from? That's the first I've heard of this.

Really? This is pretty much common knowledge when dealing with the pre-forward pass era. Hockey was played under essentially rugby rules during Walsh's time, and teams tried to get the puck on the stick of their best offensive players as soon as they gained possession because this was the most reliable way of moving the puck up the ice. Among other things, this is the biggest reason why Cyclone Taylor was moved to defense for a while (before he went to the PCHA where forward passing was allowed, and he went back to playing as a forward).

 

[Dreakmur]

Really? This is pretty much common knowledge when dealing with the pre-forward pass era. Hockey was played under essentially rugby rules during Walsh's time, and teams tried to get the puck on the stick of their best offensive players as soon as they gained possession because this was the most reliable way of moving the puck up the ice. Among other things, this is the biggest reason why Cyclone Taylor was moved to defense for a while (before he went to the PCHA where forward passing was allowed, and he went back to playing as a forward).

That's great, but everyone in the ATD plays under the same set if rules. It's not like Walsh isn't allowed to make forward passes and Nieuwendyk is.