NJ's two biggest advantages: Goaltending and Coaching
Goaltending
Not much to say here. The HOH Top Goalies project has Frank Brimsek in 9th and George Hainsworth in 22nd. The project isn't perfect, but I think that is essentially the correct range for both of them, give or take a couple spots in either direction.
Brimsek appears to have been the best goalie of his generation, with a regular season peak similar to Bill Durnan, but more longevity and at least a somewhat better playoff record.
Hainsworth, on the other hand, is the 3rd/4th best goalie of his generation along with Tiny Thompson, behind Charlie Gardiner and Roy Worters. We know that he was never selected the 1st Team All Star on the official teams or the unofficial teams voted by NHL GMs. We also have a full
1927-28 GM GM voted on team. 1927-28 was one of Hainsworth's 3 Vezina Trophies (for lowest Team GAA in the league). He set an NHL record for GAA that he would break the following year. And yet Roy Worters was voted 1st Teamer by a wide margin, and Hainsworth only finished a single vote ahead of Alec Connell for 2nd Team.
Coaching
A more interesting comparison.
Mike Keenan said:
Glen Sather is my role model. He doesn't operate out of the fear of making a decision but out of a sense of confidence that feeds through the entire organization. That confidence has sometimes been labeled as arrogance, but I have a great deal of respect for it.
In a vacuum, I think NJ has something of an advantage in coaching.
Keenan and Sather are probably the two best coaches of the 1980s not named Al Arbour. Keenan's innovation in bringing the modern short-shift game to the NHL is well documented. And Glen Sather has the best playoff record of any coach all time - yes, a lot of that has to do with the players, but it still takes a certain type of coach to get the most out of a group of star offensive players, and I do think there is a legitimate argument that coaching is one of the main reasons why Wayne Gretzky has 4 Cups, while Bobby Orr has only 2.
So where does NJ's advantage lie? Roger Neilson, whose coaching innovations got him inducted into the HHOF as a builder (for what it's worth, Glen Sather is in too, and Mike Keenan isn't though IMO he should be). I don't think that every head coach out there would make use of a strong assistant coach (guys with big egos like Imlach or Keenan certainly wouldn't). But Glen Sather was known as a big picture guy and "master player psychologist" who left a lot of the strategic details to his assistants. In Sather's profile, I have a quote from one of Sather's assistants at the 1994 World Championships, Canada's first gold medal at that tournament in 33 years:
Later that year, I had the good fortune of working with Glen Sather when we built that World Championship Team. Glen gave me a lot of leeway.
...
We planned a very aggressive style with four men on the attack. We felt we had the right team to go for it and force other teams to handle our attack. To do this, we needed special defensive players to handle the potential outnumberings that might occur. Our special defensive players were Luke Richardson, Bobby Dollas, and Marc Bergevin. We were criticized before we left Canada because these guys were not your typical international players...
We were able to do something that 33 previous Canadian entries, many of which had better individual talent, couldn't accomplish. We were a team!
The above quote says a lot about Sather's relationship with his assistant coaches - Sather created the big picture model for how he wanted the team to run - generally aggressive offense-first, but with specific players in the lineup to take care of the defensive end of things. But he gave his assistants a lot of leeway in how to handle the details.
In Edmonton, he had John Muckler to diagram plays and remind the players to be responsible defensively - I see Roger Neilson playing the same role that Muckler did, and no offense to Muckler, but Neilson is a big step up as a coaching mind.
Why Glen Sather fits the Swamp Devils roster
The short version: Offense-first system, with specific role players to handle the defensive end of things. Sather also built his system around his players, rather than finding players who could fit a pre-existing system, which is necessary for unique talents like Phil Esposito and Paul Coffey.
The longer version:
- Sather's general team building strategy was to load up on offensive talent ("the most talented team usually wins") and surround them with role players who can handle the defensive assignments - I think that's what I have on the Swamp Devils.
- Sather did have the Oilers play a European-style skating system, but there is a lot of information in his bio about how he basically inherited Wayne Gretzky and spent the next few years doing nothing but working on building a team and system around Gretzky's talents. There is also a Wayne Gretzky quote in the Sather bio praising Sather for handling every player differently. I think that probably means he'll set up a system to adjust to the unique talent that was Phil Esposito (we already know Sather worked well with Coffey).
- When Sather was making the transition from journeyman player to coach/GM in the WHA, he was very impressed by how the Winnipeg Jets handled their European players: "Glen Sather had been impressed by the likes of Anders Hedberg, Ulf Nilsson, and other European players in the WHA. The point, Glen Sather knew, was not to import these players and then attempt to retrain them to play North American-style hockey. To some extent, the (Winnipeg) Jets embraced a European style - a winning style - of playing. That was another point not lost on Glen Sather. He liked the style and he liked winning." The Swamp Devils 2nd line is built to play a European-style skill get, rather than a North American dump and chase game.
- Sather's players generally liked playing for him, but he was far from a pushover if he felt a player needed to be disciplined - he was known for randomly checking his players beds, for example. I think one of the problems in Boston in the 1970s was that the players basically walked all over the coaches, and Sather definitely wouldn't let that happen.
Mike Keenan and Cincinnati
Here's an article written by Jeremy Roenick about Mike Keenan, entitled
Mike Keenan, the NHL's last great ******* coach
Jeremy Roenick said:
Playing for coach Mike Keenan in Chicago was like camping on the side of an active volcano. You had to accept the reality that he erupted regularly and that there was always a danger of being caught in his lava flow. He was a tyrant, a schoolyard bully, an oldschool coach who tried to motivate players through intimidation, belittlement and fear.
The truth is that Keenan scared me into being a better NHL player. I was 18 when I began to play for Iron Mike, and I was afraid of him.
...
The veterans on the team didn't fear Keenan; they merely despised him, and I believe Mike liked it that way. He was always hard on players, like a drill sergeant trying to ready recruits for the dangers ahead. Dealing with Mike's rants was one of the job requirements for being a Blackhawk. One night, the Blackhawks were playing in St. Louis, and Keenan became enraged about our effort to the point that he ripped out seven ceiling tiles in the visitors' dressing room.
Keenan was a screamer who thought nothing of singling out one of his players for a personal attack, just to let the team know how upset he was with how the team was performing. Over the course of the season, Keenan had accused most of his players of being "chicken****" or "an embarrassment to your family."
"You don't deserve to be in the ****in' league," Keenan would often scream at you. "You should be ashamed of the way you are playing."
Mercy was not usually on the table when Keenan had a lock on a player
Keenan will love Cincy's leadership group. He'll ride Ted Kennedy hard in all situations, and he'll he'll love the toughness of Harry Watson and Ken Reardon. I don't see him having any problems with Red Kelly. But there are 3 specific Cincinnati players (all in prominent positions) who I see Keenan really having issues with.
1) Frank Mahovlich
Joe Pelletier said:
During this time Mahovlich averaged over 30 goals a year, but there was much criticism of him from coach Imlach and a loud number of the fans who bought into Imlach's campaign. It seemed nothing Mahovlich could do was good enough. Things got so bad that the Big M was actually hospitalized with acute tension and depression, and later would leave the game after suffering a nervous breakdown. Described as a shy and sensitive person, the hockey prodigy paid a high price for hockey stardom.
Mike Keenan might be one of the few coaches in hockey history who was even harder on his players than Punch Imlach
2) Henrik Sedin. Hawkey Town pointed out that Mike Keenan and Denis Savard had a very bad relationship in Chicago:
When Keenan was coach and later general manager of the Hawks for a four-year period starting in 1988, Savard was finishing out a Hall of Fame playing career. Savard's playing style didn't fit Keenan's coaching style, and that surfaced in a variety of ways. Keenan reduced Savard's ice time, stripped him of his captaincy and finally traded him to the Montreal Canadiens for Chris Chelios.
Keenan hated Savard's playing style. Henrik Sedin isn't Denis Savard, but he does share some of Savard's "faults" - I think Sedin is a bit better defensively than Savard, but he's softer.
3) Lynn Patrick.
Rangers Top 100 book said:
Ar six-feet, 200 pounds, Patrick had a better-than-average hockey body [...] He was a finesse player, prefer to dazzle on his skates and with his stick, eschewing the more robust exploit of some of his teammates, particularly the his rolllicking, hard-checking brother Muzz.
Madison Square Garden crowds often teased him with nicLknames such as ''twinkletoes'' or ''Sonja'', the latter a reference to the world-famous figure skating star of the era, Sonja Henie. Patrick merely shrugged it off, much as he had criticism and doubt that came earlier from, of all places, within his own family.
Keenan liked his players to be tough - Keenan was fairly unique among modern great coaches in that his teams were usually highly penalized. And we know how merciless he was towards players who didn't fit his mold.
Conclusion
In a vacuum, NJ has something of a coaching advantage. Even if Keenan is Sather's equal (and I'm not sure he is), Roger Neilson brings a lot to NJ's bench and is exactly the type of guy who could work well with Sather.
Once player-coach chemistry is taken into account, NJ has a pretty substantial advantage.
