Jim Robson Divisional Quarterfinals: Toronto vs. Vancouver

[Sturminator]

Toronto St.Pats

(1919-1927)
GM: Leafs Forever13
Head Coach: Jack Adams
Captain: Raymond Bourque
Assistant Captains: Wayne Cashman, Frank Boucher


Roy Conacher-Frank Boucher-Glenn Anderson
Gord Roberts-Marcel Dionne-Wayne Cashman
Fleming Mackell-Keith Primeau-Danny Gare
Marcel Bonin-Troy Murray-Rejean Houle

Raymond Bourque-Allan Stanley
Cy Wentworth-Gary Bergman
Red Dutton-George Owen

Ed Belfour
Al Rollins

Spares: Bobby Rowe, D/RW, Chris Drury C/LW, Stephane Richer W, Gerard Gallant LW

Vs.

Vancouver Millionares

Head coach: Mike Keenan
Assistant coach: John Tortorella
Captain: Milt Schmidt
Assistants: Rod Langway, Tom Johnson

''Busher'' Jackson - Milt Schmidt - Gordie Drillon
Rick Martin - Igor Larionov - Rene Robert
Simon Gagne - Slava Starshinov - Bobby Rousseau
Kirk Maltby - Ryan Kesler - Jamie Langenbrunner
Lorne Carr
Alexei Yashin

Rod Langway - Tom Johnson
Craig Hartsburg - Adam Foote
Ian Turnbull - Paul Reinhart
Jyrki Lumme

Ken Dryden
Gerry Cheevers​

Click to read more...

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

1st lines: Advantage Vancouver

Boucher is definitely the best offensive creator, but Milt Schmidt is definitely the best player on either line. Jackson>Conacher. It's close, but Busher definitely has the higher game-breaking ability in a playoff series. Anderson>Drillon, even though Glenn is routinely one of the most overrated player taken in the ATD. He's not a 165-185 range player, more like 205-215 IMO. He's a glue guy, where as Drillon actually has legit front-line skills despite his much talked about flakey ways on here. Vancouver takes this in both offence and two-way ability thanks to the guy in the middle for me.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

2nd lines: - Advantage Toronto

Two very differen't center's in styles with Dionne and Larionov. One is all out offence all the time, the other is a cerebral two-way playmaker. I don't know enough about Gord Roberts to be honest with you, there isn't much info on him out there hopefully you can make a case for him LF - but Rick Martin was a stud goalscorer and is better than him in this capacity IMO. However, Dionne wastes Larionov in talent and Cashman is more effective than Robert, so I would say our top 6's are about equal overall.

 

[Dreakmur]

1st lines: Advantage Vancouver

Boucher is definitely the best offensive creator, but Milt Schmidt is definitely the best player on either line. Jackson>Conacher. It's close, but Busher definitely has the higher game-breaking ability in a playoff series. Anderson>Drillon, even though Glenn is routinely one of the most overrated player taken in the ATD. He's not a 165-185 range player, more like 205-215 IMO. He's a glue guy, where as Drillon actually has legit front-line skills despite his much talked about flakey ways on here. Vancouver takes this in both offence and two-way ability thanks to the guy in the middle for me.

I'm not sure I agree that Jackson is better than Conacher here. Conacher is clearly the better goalscorer. He had multiple top-2s in goalscoring before and after the war, so he is one of he guys who is most impacted by that event. He's also playing the a center who is going to do nothing by feed him the puck.

Jackon, on the other hand, is forced to be the offenive leader on his team, which is something he never was in real life. As good as Schmidt is as an all-around player, he's not exactly an offensive force. According to contemporary sources, Jackson wa the 3rd wheel of the kid line, so is he really going to be able to lead his line here?

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

According to contemporary sources, Jackson wa the 3rd wheel of the kid line, so is he really going to be able to lead his line here?

LoL, what contemporary sources?? Jackson was positively the second best player on the kid line, behind Conacher and ahead of Primeau. Primeau was a bum trying to find his way in the NHL basicaly until age 25 when he was put on that line. Schmidt is the leader of not only this line but the entire team obviously, so no - I'm not expecting Jackson to carry burden's here.

 

[Dreakmur]

LoL, what contemporary sources??

Players, coaches, and newspapers. Read Primeau's bio from this year's daft.

Jackson was positively the second best player on the kid line, behind Conacher and ahead of Primeau. Primeau was a bum trying to find his way in the NHL basicaly until age 25 when he was put on that line.

Charlie Conacher was clearly the line's best offensive weapon and biggest physical presense. According to contemporary sources, Primeau was the key to that line. He drove the line's succes.

That leaves Jackson as the least important guy.

Schmidt is the leader of not only this line but the entire team obviously, so no - I'm not expecting Jackson to carry burden's here.

Schmidt isn't really skilled enough to carry an offenive line. He can do the dirty work, but he can't lead the offensive charge.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Primeau was "key to his line" in the same way as Jere Lehtinen was key to the Lehtinen-Modano-Hull line.

Primeau was the defensive conscience and glue guy of the line, but Jackson was the more talented player.

I mean Primeau was closer to his linemates in offense than Lehtinen was.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Primeau was "key to his line" in the same way as Jere Lehtinen was key to the Lehtinen-Modano-Hull line.

Primeau was the defensive conscience and glue guy of the line, but Jackson was the more talented player.

I mean Primeau was closer to his linemates in offense than Lehtinen was.

Exactly. Primeau is the Rucchin to Kariya and Selanne, or the Morrison to Naslund and Bertuzzi. Obviously not that dramatic, but you get the idea.

 

[Dreakmur]

Primeau was "key to his line" in the same way as Jere Lehtinen was key to the Lehtinen-Modano-Hull line.

Primeau was the defensive conscience and glue guy of the line, but Jackson was the more talented player.

In addition to being the glue guy and defensive conscience, Primeau was also the line's primary puck-carrier and playmaker. He's the guy who advanced the puck up ice, and created many of the offensive chances that Conacher and Jackson finished on. Looking at adjusted assist/point totals, Primeau's offensive contributions are higher than Jackson's.

Jackson had more natural ability, but that doesn't make him the better hockey player.

Exactly. Primeau is the Rucchin to Kariya and Selanne, or the Morrison to Naslund and Bertuzzi. Obviously not that dramatic, but you get the idea.

Not exactly.

Primeau outscored Jackson a few times, and that doesn't even account for under-recorded assists of the time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree with you that MB's first line is three players who aren't used to being the primary puck carrier on their lines.

Disagree that Primeau was better than Jackson - it goes against just about anything I've read about the kid line.

 

[Velociraptor]

I agree with you that MB's first line is three players who aren't used to being the primary puck carrier on their lines.

Disagree that Primeau was better than Jackson - it goes against just about anything I've read about the kid line.

Absolutely, after drafting Conacher, everything I've read also suggests Jackson was the second best player on the line.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Absolutely, after drafting Conacher, everything I've read also suggests Jackson was the second best player on the line.

I also don't buy that Schmidt can't carry the puck through the neutral zone. Woody Dumart sure as hell didn't do it for the Kraut line - I know Bauer was slick, but if Milt couldn't handle the damn puck he wouldn't have been such a prestigious player in history.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Looking forward to a good series.

I'm studying for an exams at the moment (including one on my argument class tomorrow, ironically), so I'll be delaying slightly in really starting things on my side. Suffice to say for now that I disagree with certain line argument presented thus far.

I'll weigh in on Primeau/Jackson here: it is severely underrating Primeau to call him the Rucchin to Kariya/Selanne, or anything approaching that. He was a star in his own right, and is not far off from Jackson (if behind at all- though not a territory I'm well read on to make a definite call); he was definitely a key cog to that line, even if he served as the playmaking, defensive consience.

As far as Jackson/Schmidt leading an offensive charge: "he wouldn't be prestigious in hockey history if he couldn't" in terms of Schmidt is a fairly weak argument- Schmidt is generally known for all-around play, and it is plenty possible to become famous in hockey history for other things. And Conacher was certainly the big one who seemed to lead things on the Kid line.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

As Primeau's owner, I'll chip in a bit here. He was to the Kid Line what Larionov was to the KLM line. In terms of pure hockey skill, he was probably the 3rd most talented member of the line(considering what the other two did while being notoriously lazy). But, without him, the line simply would not have worked. He provided the glue, the playmaking, and the defense that let the other two play offense. Where does that stand in who's the "best player"? If canon is correct, Jackson is. I'd probably agree with that sentiment. How much better? I couldn't tell you.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As Primeau's owner, I'll chip in a bit here. He was to the Kid Line what Larionov was to the KLM line. In terms of pure hockey skill, he was probably the 3rd most talented member of the line(considering what the other two did while being notoriously lazy). But, without him, the line simply would not have worked. He provided the glue, the playmaking, and the defense that let the other two play offense. Where does that stand in who's the "best player"? If canon is correct, Jackson is. I'd probably agree with that sentiment. How much better? I couldn't tell you.

I think this is probably an accurate description. I like the Larionov comparison

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

3rd lines: Advantage Vancouver

More explosive offensively, and better checkers as well. Whatever physical edge Primeau would provide is almost washed out by Starshinov even.

Starshy>>Primeau
Roussea>Gare
Gagne>=Mackell

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

As Primeau's owner, I'll chip in a bit here. He was to the Kid Line what Larionov was to the KLM line. In terms of pure hockey skill, he was probably the 3rd most talented member of the line(considering what the other two did while being notoriously lazy). But, without him, the line simply would not have worked. He provided the glue, the playmaking, and the defense that let the other two play offense. Where does that stand in who's the "best player"? If canon is correct, Jackson is. I'd probably agree with that sentiment. How much better? I couldn't tell you.

I didn't mean for it to have to come to me bashing Joe Primeau, lol. He's a fine 2nd line center (and keep in mind I'm picking your team to go all the way!), but he was no way a better player than Jackson - thats bull.

 

[Leafs Forever]

On first lines, I will argue that the two first lines are close, with a slight edge to Vancouver.

1st lines: Advantage Vancouver

Boucher is definitely the best offensive creator, but Milt Schmidt is definitely the best player on either line. Jackson>Conacher. It's close, but Busher definitely has the higher game-breaking ability in a playoff series. Anderson>Drillon, even though Glenn is routinely one of the most overrated player taken in the ATD. He's not a 165-185 range player, more like 205-215 IMO. He's a glue guy, where as Drillon actually has legit front-line skills despite his much talked about flakey ways on here. Vancouver takes this in both offence and two-way ability thanks to the guy in the middle for me.

I'll start by contesting Boucher and Schmidt; I feel the bolded is highly questionable, and I think that these two are in the same tier of centres. Boucher may actually have an edge.

You observe that Frank Boucher is the better offensive creator- but let's look at just how much that is.

I'll do a simple top-10 points look.

Schmidt: 1, 4, 4, 10, 10
Boucher: 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 7, 10.

And playoffs:

Schmidt: 1, 4, 6, 8.
Boucher: 1, 1, 6, 6
(Both had good opportunity and conn-smythe worthy runs; but Boucher's got an edge here, somewhat, I think).

A pretty wide gap all things considered. Yes, you can make the argument for the war years Schmidt had- but I've never been one to be swayed by that argument, as I dislike giving value based on "what-ifs".

Toughness is a pretty large edge to Schmidt, I will concede.

Defensively? I'm not particularly sold Schmidt has as dramatic an edge as ATD canon would suggest. Yes, he was known as a top-notch two-way centre..but so was Boucher. Looking at the evidence that I'm aware of (namely EB's old, quality Schmidt bio,) Boucher might have slightly more evidence (comparing the stuff their to that of my bio). I'm willing to give Schmidt the benefit of the doubt and give him somewhat of an edge, but not a large one until I see a better case presented on his defense.

(Boucher's evidence can be found in my conveniently linked bio- most of it the great work of Sturminator last year).

This considered, I think Boucher's offense edge is stronger than Schmidt's. You might give more points to Schmidt's war years than I do, as well as his canonical defense (but when's the last time you really tried to gauge his defensive level and not relied on canon?), but I don't think it'd be enough to really give Schmidt any significant edge. I see these two as fairly equal at best.

____________________________

Jackson vs Conacher

I won't contend this one particularly much. Both are here to provide some good goal-scoring prescence, but Jackson is somewhat better at it.

------

Drillon vs Anderson

I fail to see what draft position has to do with how these two stack up. Drillon obviously has a substantial offensive advantage in terms of best- 4 finishes(1, 2, 4, 8 in top-10 vs 9,11, 12, 13 for Anderson- though Anderson's in the tougher era), Anderson just brings such a complete game, wheras Drillon brings quite the opposite.
supposedly not concerned with backchecking (to LOH). I won't harp on Drillon's playoffs much, since he had very good runs, but Anderson does seem to be more of a big-gamer and raising his level due to Drillon's famous blackmark in 1942 (benched for game 4-7 of the SC finals; Leafs coming back and winning those 4 games to take the cup).

Drillon's an overall better player, but Anderson's complete game and big-game performance, along with Drillon's questionable defense, must be considered.

---

Overall line impression

It's flawed at best for monster-bertuzzi to say that his line has better two-way ability; Schmidt's defense is not particularly better (unless he can provide better analysis than I can find), wheras he is dealing with a distinct minus on the RW defensively (and Anderson is a slight plus in his own zone, I think).

Offensively, I think things are tight. Boucher's advantage over Schmidt can certainly compete with or best with either advantage on the wing (particularly in the playoffs in the case of RW). I'll concede a small edge to Vancouver here, the power of Boucher over Schmidt really narrowing that wing gap.

Toughness to Vancouver, I will concede, on these lines.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

I'll start by contesting Boucher and Schmidt; I feel the bolded is highly questionable, and I think that these two are in the same tier of centres. Boucher may actually have an edge.

I don't think you know more than THN staff who ranked Schmidt 35 spots higher than Boucher in their 1998 list. I really can't whip up anything, other than Schmidt is universally considered a better player than Boucher just about everywhere. Milt is in Messier territory...Boucher, Forsberg.

Obviously Schmidt is behind Messier and Boucher is ahead of Forsberg, but who are you fooling trying to say Boucher>Schmidt? It's the leadership, grit, and yes - defensive conscience that seperates them. Boucher's finishes aren't even that much better anyway.

 

[Sturminator]

I don't think you know more than THN staff who ranked Schmidt 35 spots higher than Boucher in their 1998 list. I really can't whip up anything, other than Schmidt is universally considered a better player than Boucher just about everywhere. Milt is in Messier territory...Boucher, Forsberg.

Obviously Schmidt is behind Messier and Boucher is ahead of Forsberg, but who are you fooling trying to say Boucher>Schmidt? It's the leadership, grit, and yes - defensive conscience that seperates them. Boucher's finishes aren't even that much better anyway.

I think we, as a group, know a lot more than the THN staff who ranked Schmidt over Boucher in 1998, and frankly I can't believe you are using that list as an argument here. They also ranked Lorne Chabot 84th, Bob Gainey 86th, Mike Gartner 89th, Babe Pratt 96th and Gadsby/Nighbor 99th and 100th. It would be hard to find an all-time list that has been more thoroughly discredited than that one. What is this...ATD#3?

There is ample evidence out there that Frank Boucher was an excellent defensive center in his own right, and no, they don't look that close offensively. Schmidt's finishes are very up and down, while Boucher was consistently one of the greatest scorers in the world for a decade in an era when playmakers were handicapped by the scoring system. Schmidt is certainly grittier, but Boucher's playoff performances are on the whole somewhat more impressive. Putting them in the same tier is appropriate. LF could have easily argued that Boucher is better.

 

[nik jr]

is dionne on toronto's 1st PP? it seems natural to me to have the team's best scorer with its best PP QB.


something to keep in mind in this comparison of boucher and schmidt is that boucher played with clearly superior linemates. bill cook seems to have had a greater reputation than boucher, but schmidt had a much greater reputation than dumart and bower.

i think the general opinion of contemporaries also points to schmidt's superiority.



a potential problem of vancouver is that langway and johnson were not very good offensively, and i could see their unit struggling in transition, especially if they are playing with schmidt's line. schmidt was a great 2 way player, but drillon was known for lazy defensive play, and jackson was also not much of a backchecker.

i posted in the dirt thread that jackson and drillon were linemates with syl apps for a while, but the line was split b/c it was defensively weak. jackson was replaced by bob davidson.

vancouver's other pairs are not lacking in transition, neither are its other lines lacking in backcheckers.

 

[Sturminator]

bill cook seems to have had a greater reputation than boucher

How much is the canonical difference between these two based on:

1) the fact that Cook was captain
2) overemphasis on statistical peaks

Cook's scoring finishes: 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 7, 10
Boucher's scoring finishes: 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 10

3) overemphasis on goalscoring

Cook won three goalscoring crowns. Boucher won three assists crowns in an era when assists were actually harder to earn than goals (meaning less than 1 assist/goal), but nobody gives a crap about assists because goals are sexy. Cook and Boucher were both three-time 1st team all-stars and one-time 2nd teamers. Both finished twice in the top-5 in Hart voting without winning it. Did their contemporaries really think there was much difference between them, or was that just the THN panel?

...but schmidt had a much greater reputation than dumart and bower.

Which isn't saying much.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The THN panel seems to have been very familiar with original 6 and 1970s hockey but with the exception of Milt Dunnell, probably didn't know much about hockey before 1950 or so. In other words, they were relying on simple stats and hearsay for guys like Schmidt an Boucher. It's quite obvious they didn't put work into researching players before their time.

Remember, Schmidt was GM of Boston for quite some time and his legend might have grown after retirement for that reason.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Special teams as of now:

PP1: Roy Conacher-Marcel Dionne-Glenn Anderson
Raymond Bourque-Allan Stanley

PP2: Gord Roberts-Frank Boucher-Wayne Cashman
Gary Bergman-George Owen

PK1:Fleming Mackell-Rejan Houle
Raymond Bourque-Cy Wentworth

PK2: Troy Murray-Marcel Bonin
Red Dutton-Allan Stanley

 

[vecens24]

Count me among those that think Boucher and Schmidt are in the same tier, with Schmidt slightly ahead only because he was relied upon as the best on his line whereas I do still think Bill Cook was the best on the Bread line. The assist recording does help Boucher's argument, but I just don't know that I've read anything that didn't say it was Bill Cook. Sturm you've read more than I have so maybe Boucher was better, but as far as what I've seen Cook has the edge on him.

But yeah, I think Boucher and Schmidt are close. I was trying to move up to draft Boucher at one point after Nighbor went, as I felt Boucher and Harvey would have been an excellent start to a defensive team.