McLaughlin Division semi-finals: #2 Queen's U. Golden Gaels v. #3 Philly Bulldogs

[VanIslander]

The Frederic McLaughlin Division semi-final playoff series


Queen's University Golden Gaels

coach Jacques Martin

Sergei Shepelev - Billy Barlow - Mac Colville
Nick Libett (A) - Vladimir Golikov - Ulf Dahlen
Randy Burridge - Michal Pivonka - Wildor Larochelle
Dan Maloney - Patrick Sharp - Ken Schinkel
Ron Murphy, Mickey Roach

Chris Phillips (A) - Anton Volchenkov
Sergei Starikov - Igor Stelnov
Frank Eddolls (C) - Igor Romishevsky
Bugsy Watson

Pekka Lindmark
Don Beaupre


vs.


Philadelphia Bulldogs

coach Barry Trotz

Tony Gingras - Mike Walton - Petr Sykora
Yevgeny Mishakov (A) - Art Jackson - Lasse Oksanen
Greg Gilbert - Pelle Eklund - Vlastimil Bubnik
Bep Guidolin - Billy Bell - Paul Holmgren
Jimmy Carson, Real Chevrefils

Curt Giles (C) - Bob Armstrong
Bert Marshall (A) - Jim McKenny
Bill Brydge - Kim Johnsson
Stanislav Petukhov

Mike Palmateer
Jon Casey

​

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

vs.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

My roster with linked bios for easy reference:

Philadelphia Bulldogs
Coach: Barry Trotz

Tony Gingras- Mike Walton-Petr Sykora
Yevgeny Mishakov(A)-Art Jackson-Lasse Oksanen
Greg Gilbert-Pelle Eklund-Paul Holmgren
Bep Guidolin-Billy Bell-Vlastimil Bubnik
Jimmy Carson, Real Chevrefils

Curt Giles(C)-Bob Armstrong
Bert Marshall(A)-Jim McKenny
Bill Brydge-Kim Johnsson
Stanislav Petukhov(also a RW)

Mike Palmateer
Jon Casey​

1939 or earlier-Gingras
1940 to 1965-Armstrong
1966 to 1979-Palmateer
1980 to 1993-Eklund
1994 to 2010-Sykora

PP1

Gingras-Walton-Bubnik
McKenny-Eklund

PP2

Oksanen-Jackson-Holmgren
Brydge-Sykora

PK1

Eklund-Gilbert
Giles-Marshall

PK2

Mishakov-Bell
Armstrong-Brydge

My initial observations:

-Two very different teams. Queen's University will rely on sound defense and being opportunistic to gets its goals, featuring almost all good two-way players in its forward corps. Philadelphia is a little more of a finesse team in its top 6. Both shutdown first pairings but I think Philly's might be a little more capable in their offensive zone. How much do we know about the Soviet 2nd pairing on Queen's University, and how did they stack up playing against the best in the world? Are they comparable to one of the premier offensive defensemen of his time and a good, rugged shutdown guy? Are Eddolls and the Soviet as good as a tough guy that has 3 top 10 point finishes among defensemen, and a #1 defenseman for a very good Flyers team? Queen's features two very good goalies, and probably has the minor advantage here. I'll try to go more in depth soon.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

We plan on sticking our 3rd line all over Billy Barlow and Sergei Shepelev. We have moved Holmgren to the 3rd line in order to provide a more physical presence, and will be given the task of roughing up the Russian Shepelev. Their first line is our biggest concern, with the Queen's 2nd line not being nearly as formidable.

Another big thing that Philadelphia has going for it is stepping it up in the playoffs. Mike Walton has 35 points in 23 career WHA playoff games, and has been a part of 2 Stanley Cup winning teams. Petr Sykora's won 2 Stanley Cups, being 2nd in scoring for the New Jersey Devils in the playoffs in 2000-01 and 3rd in 1999-00. Gingras has won 2 Stanley Cups, scoring 7 goals in 16 career Stanley Cup final games. Art Jackson has another 2 Stanley Cups to his name, and tied for the lead in scoring on the Bruins in the 42-43 playoffs. Eklund posted over a PPG in the 86-87 playoffs during the run to the finals, scoring 27 points in 26 games, second only to Brian Propp by 1 point. Overall, 46 points in 66 games is a very solid total. Gilbert has 3 Stanley Cups to his credit, and over 133 playoff games where he scored 50 points. Paul Holmgren brings an extremely impressive 4 year peak in the playoffs between 1978-79 and 1981-82 where he scored 43 points in 42 playoff games, all the while picking up a good amount of penalty minutes and providing toughness. Considering the time period in which he played, Bep Guidolin's .5PPG in the playoffs is solid. Billy Bell brings yet another Stanley Cup championship to the table. Giles is a veteran of over 100 playoff games, and was a key cog in the defense of the North Stars' run to the Stanley Cup Finals in 80-81. Bob Armstrong is a vet of 2 Stanley Cup finals. Although he never won a cup, Bert Marshall played over 70 playoff games, and significantly stepped up his performance in the playoffs, evidenced by his .361PPG, compared to .23PPG in the regular season. Casey was instrumental in the North Stars' run to the finals in 90-91.

That's a grand total of 12 Stanley Cups, with other significant playoff appearances by others.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Does Mac Colville belong on a 1st line, even as a glue, defensive presence?

His offensive ability is quite low. His best finishes were a 25 and 31 in points in the O6 era, which is certainly not impressive by this draft's standards. He's certainly good defensively, but I can't help but think that he will be rather ineffective next to two much more talented players than he in Barlow and Shepelev. He may slow them down and reduce their effectiveness by not being able to keep up. Philadelphia has no such weakness on our 1st line offensively, with all 3 being noted for their puck skills and scoring abilities. Petr Sykora has better point finishes against far superior competition, and has a significant advantage offensively. While not as good defensively, the offense is the prime concern for us on our 1st line, and Sykora has way more of it than Colville.

Was Shepelev that good?

He had a decent peak between 81-84 where he was an important player on the national team, but he appeared to be a selfish, Vsevolod Bobrov-like player who didn't like to play defense.

The 26 year old Shepelev seemingly had come out of nowhere. As a younger player he was a winger with Avtomobilist Sverdlovsk who was criticized by the Russian hockey theorists who felt Shepelev was too aggressive and "too arrogant."

In 1980 he had joined Spartak Moscow where famed coach Boris Kulagin almost immediately turned him into a center. It was a seemingly odd move, given that Shepelev's lack of training as a center often troubled his defensive game and his passing, two must-have traits of centers in the Soviet system. Shepelev was a winger at heart, wanting to rush the puck and cheat offensively looking for quick breaks instead of playing high and springing the wingers.

http://internationalhockeylegends.blogspot.com/2009/05/sergei-shepelev.html

For a few tournaments, that line was one of, if not the best in the world, but he was the worst player on that line. If one were to look at his career in both the Russian league(189 goals in 453 games, .42/game) and internationally(42 goals in 103 games, .41/game) are not as impressive as another Russian on Philadelphia's roster, Yevgeny Mishakov(183 goals in 400 games for .458/game and 48 goals in 90 games internationally, good for .527/game.) Mishakov also boasts an impressive peak of 29 goals in 35 games internationally between 1968 and 1972, despite playing on a checking line.

While little is known about the Metis LW Tony Gingras for Philadelphia, there are multiple testimonies of him being a graceful skating star with great puck skills, and he had 7 goals in 16 games in the Stanley Cup challenge series.

The battle of the two best players on either first line

Billy Barlow is described as an early star just as Gingras was, but like Gingras, very little concrete information is known about him. He was supposedly a good skater, elusive, and a good puck handler and had some good goal totals in the early Challenge Cup days. Mike Walton is a more proven commodity, with concrete information and quotes to support him being a great 1st line goalscoring center. He boasts a top 10 in goal scoring in the NHL, as well as 3 top 10s in goal scoring in his 3 seasons in the WHA, with 1, 7, and 9 finishes. The first finish no doubt should count as a top 10 in the NHL at the very least, more like a top 8. The 7 and 9 are somewhere in the 25-30ish range, which puts him as one of the better goal scorers in this draft. To go along with this, he was described as having a nose for the net, being a good passer, a good skater, and a smart player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Billy, what is the source of those quotes about Shepelev?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Sorry, should've included that. Pelletier.

http://internationalhockeylegends.blogspot.com/2009/05/sergei-shepelev.html

 

[VanIslander]

Two very different teams. Queen's University will rely on sound defense and being opportunistic to gets its goals, featuring almost all good two-way players in its forward corps. Philadelphia is a little more of a finesse team in its top 6... Queen's features two very good goalies, and probably has the minor advantage here.

Good observations.

I'll address your six questions and the issue of playoff/championship depth Friday at the latest (busy week).

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Golikov and Jackson

Both are two-way 2nd line centers. Jackson boasts 2 top 10s (10, 10) in goals, 2 top 12s (5, 12) in assists, and 3 top 20s(9, 13, 19) in points in his career, although they came during the WWII days. Despite this, these statistical finishes are still impressive, and very significant. For example, in 40-41, he finished 10th in goals ahead of guys like Eddie Wiseman, Ray Getliffe, Mac Colville, Neil Colville, Nick Metz, Lorne Carr, Milt Schmidt, Sid Abel, and Mud Bruneteau. So certainly, he was ahead of some elite company here and wasn't playing against bums. Then take 43-44 when he was 10th in goals, 5th in assists, and 9th in points. He beat out Toe Blake, Ted Kennedy, Elmer Lach, and Gus Bodnar in goals; Bill Cowley, Babe Pratt, Gus Bodnar, Doug Bentley, Bill Mosienko, Lorne Carr, Syd Howe, Dit Clapper, and Earl Seibert in assists; and Gus Bodnar, Toe Blake, Maurice Richard, Ray Getliffe, Mud Bruneteau, and Ted Kennedy in points, just to name a few. The misconception that Art Jackson beat a bunch of bums for his impressive finishes is completely false, as you can see he beat out some tremendous competition. I'm not sure how I can come up with a fair comparison of Golikov and Jackson because they played in very different times in different leagues, so I'll league Jackson's finishes to speak for themselves.

Yevgeny Mishakov and Nick Libbett

Both are touted as being strong two-way wingers, with Mishakov being credited as being more physical. But when one takes a closer look at Libett's +/-, you will see some ugly, ugly numbers. I don't consider +/- to be the end all be all of judging a player, but when he is a career -167(regular and adjusted), one can't help but think that he must not have been as good in his own zone as indicated. He was a -41 in 74-75, the worst on the Red Wings. Now, the Red Wings were a bad team back then, but it's not like they were the worst in the league. Despite this, his +/- is awful. Libett has no top 10 finishes either, with his highest point finish being 45th in 71-72. Mishakov was touted as being a pretty similar player, while bringing an intensity and physical element to the table. Here are Mishakov's stats in comparison to Golikov's: Mishakov-183 goals in 400 games for .458/game in the Soviet league and 48 goals in 90 games internationally, good for .527/game, good for 20th all-time in Soviet international hockey history. Golikov had 172 goals in 435 games in the Soviet league, good for .395 goals/game, and 54 international goals in 129 games, good for .419 goals/game. As these stats illustrate, in both the Soviet league and internationally, Mishakov was a more prolific goal scorer, despite playing on a checking line. He also boasts a peak of 29 goals in 35 games internationally between 1968 and 1972. Mishakov brings a goal scoring, physical, tough, and two-way element to my line. I'll let Mishakov's superior numbers and Libett's +/- do the talking.

Oksanen vs. Dahlen

-This is going to be a very difficult comparison because there is no real basis of comparison, and being able to gauge the level of Finnish hockey in the 1960s compared to the 1990s is basically impossible. So, I'll discuss the roles of each. Dahlen's is pretty obvious, he's the crease, front of the net presence on this line, but his highest point finish was 57th in 93-94. Oksanen will serve as the shooter, trigger guy on our line. Mishakov will open up space for Jackson to pass to Oksanen in the slot. For their intended purpose on their lines, both serve their purpose well. Both 2nd lines are very responsible defensively, and are good in their own zone, but Jackson's finishes and Mishakov's impressive goal stats stick out most.

 

[seventieslord]

Both are touted as being strong two-way wingers, with Mishakov being credited as being more physical. But when one takes a closer look at Libett's +/-, you will see some ugly, ugly numbers. I don't consider +/- to be the end all be all of judging a player, but when he is a career -167(regular and adjusted), one can't help but think that he must not have been as good in his own zone as indicated. He was a -41 in 74-75, the worst on the Red Wings. Now, the Red Wings were a bad team back then, but it's not like they were the worst in the league. Despite this, his +/- is awful. Libett has no top 10 finishes either, with his highest point finish being 45th in 71-72. Mishakov was touted as being a pretty similar player, while bringing an intensity and physical element to the table. Here are Mishakov's stats in comparison to Golikov's: Mishakov-183 goals in 400 games for .458/game in the Soviet league and 48 goals in 90 games internationally, good for .527/game, good for 20th all-time in Soviet international hockey history. Golikov had 172 goals in 435 games in the Soviet league, good for .395 goals/game, and 54 international goals in 129 games, good for .419 goals/game. As these stats illustrate, in both the Soviet league and internationally, Mishakov was a more prolific goal scorer, despite playing on a checking line. He also boasts a peak of 29 goals in 35 games internationally between 1968 and 1972. Mishakov brings a goal scoring, physical, tough, and two-way element to my line. I'll let Mishakov's superior numbers and Libett's +/- do the talking.

I was cautious about Libett's adjusted +/- myself, but the fact is, unless you're one of the very best, you're going to get scored on when you're playing against the opposition's best. This is an excuse for Libett having a bad adjusted +/-. Is it an excuse for being as bad as it is? Maybe not. But the guy's a AAA player.

Mishakov has 32 points in 41 actual international games that matter. It's not very impressive. Yeah, Libett has no top-10s to speak of, or anything close, but this is a AAA third-liner we're talking about, what did you expect here? 8 40-point seasons playing the role he did, is very respectable.

I've had the opportunity to research Mishakov, having played against him in the AAA11 finals, and I'd take Libett over him without hesitation.

At the time I actually compared him directly to Dan Maloney, who, incidentally, is your opponent's 4th line LW now:

Ahhh, well why didn't you tell me he was in KOTI? I just checked him out, here's what I know:

- 23-9-32 in 41 international games of importance (OWG, WEC, SS) with 25 PIM
- compact, clumsy fellow
- yakushev felt out of place next to this "grunt"
- Compared to their teammates on Army and the National Team, Mishakov and his linemates were average players
- often given the job of checking top players which they did rigorously.
- late in his career was a sub who filled in on the army line or to wake up the "lazy" Spartak line.
- Always in excellent shape and in a good mood
- Never considered a hero by the writers and Tarasov preferred other players
- Exemplified perpetual motion and tireless effort.
- When players complained about training, Tarasov would point to Mishakov as an example of energy and persistence.
- Killed penalties at the summit series

My assessment:

- Equal in skating to Maloney, though his compactness may make him look faster in a Wellwood-sort of way.
- Better defensively than maloney, who was not a shutdown player or PK guy
- Equal to Maloney as an energy/4th line guy
- Equal to Maloney as a character/team guy
- Inferior to Maloney in toughness (because hey, this is Maloney)
- Offensively? Your guess is as good as mine. To get a good idea of where to rank them I'd need to compare Maloney's output to a Canadian of known skill, then do the same with Mishakov and try to extrapolate from there. My gut tells me Maloney had more offensve capability.

He had 181 goals in 400 games (0.45) around the same time that Loktev had 213 in 340 (0.63) although his career started and ended 7 years after Loktev's which is a bit of a boost for him since I believe Russian hockey would have been at a higher average level throughout his career. His international stats pale to Loktev's (50 in 57). Overall I'd say he's about 70% as good as Loktev offensively, and Loktev is a good ATD 4th-liner. Maloney compares favourably to a few ATD 4th-liners but is behind most of them. He's around 80-90% the production level of all the 4th line RWs who played in his time - Rejean Houle, Mario Tremblay, Gary Dornhoefer, but well behind guys like Vaive, Pronovost and Paiement, at least when peak value is considered. I think the first 3 are rather below-average 4th liners and the latter 3 are pretty good. Leaving Maloney at a 50-70% level of a good 4th liner offensively, I guess I have to conclude he's not quite as good as Mishakov offensively, and therefore not quite the better player overall. But I will say that Maloney is better suited to be a 4th liner... by a bit.

There you have it, folks. The most exhaustive comparison of two AAA 4th-line wingers you'll ever see.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I was cautious about Libett's adjusted +/- myself, but the fact is, unless you're one of the very best, you're going to get scored on when you're playing against the opposition's best. This is an excuse for Libett having a bad adjusted +/-. Is it an excuse for being as bad as it is? Maybe not. But the guy's a AAA player.

Mishakov has 32 points in 41 actual international games that matter. It's not very impressive. Yeah, Libett has no top-10s to speak of, or anything close, but this is a AAA third-liner we're talking about, what did you expect here? 8 40-point seasons playing the role he did, is very respectable.

I've had the opportunity to research Mishakov, having played against him in the AAA11 finals, and I'd take Libett over him without hesitation.

At the time I actually compared him directly to Dan Maloney, who, incidentally, is your opponent's 4th line LW now:

If he was a 3rd liner, I'd have no criticism, he'd fit perfectly in that role. But he's on the 2nd line. What are you counting as "a game that matters"? WC? Olympics?

 

[seventieslord]

If he was a 3rd liner, I'd have no criticism, he'd fit perfectly in that role. But he's on the 2nd line. What are you counting as "a game that matters"? WC? Olympics?

wow, I didn't notice he was on the 2nd line, sorry, my bad.

Games that matter - WC, Olympics, Summit, Super Series.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Pivonka vs. Eklund

Both were pass first offensive players, and were solid in their own zone... These two are really, really close.

=

Gilbert vs. Larochelle

Again, very close,...

=

Holmgren vs. Burridge

Two grinding forwards going up against each other here. Holmgren brings more physicality to the table, evidence by his much higher PIM totals, and will be our team policeman. Holmgren's highest point finish was 60th, and Burridge's highest was 63. Both were elected to an All Star Game based on merit. Holmgren boasts a higher career +/- of 105, compared to Burridge's +65. Adjusted, Burridge's PPG is .586 to Holmgren's .50 in the regular season. But in the postseason, Holmgren boasts a .621PPG to Burridge's .486PPG, including a 4 year peak where Holmgren had 43 points in 42 playoff games.

Burridge had two Stanley Cup finals scoring runs as one of the top assist getters and won accolades everywhere he went for his energy, hard work, leadership and fan favorite play. I love both these picks and cannot possibly choose between them. I was a huge Burridge fan personally, so take this as a compliment that I consider this comparison a wash.

VANISLANDER HERE...SORRY - 11:34 PM HERE... AND THE DANG MODERATOR EDIT-POST BUTTON IS WHERE THE USUAL QUOTE BUTTON IS, SO I THOUGHT I HAD QUOTED THIS POST AND ENDED UP EDITING IT! ARGGH! SORRY

 

[seventieslord]

Eklund has more anecdotal evidence about his passing abilities and has a higher assist per game, but Pivonka has better finishes and was a slightly better goal scorer

And he did it at the NHL for much longer, too.

0.68 for 594 games is likely not as impressive as 0.64 in 825 games.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Our 4th lines are extremely different and would be very difficult to compare, and since they are the 4th lines in the AAA draft, we'll avoid that argument. Now, I move on to the defenses:

Phillips-Volchenkov vs. Giles-Armstrong

-Both first pairings are definitely shutdown pairings by design. The Queen's pair has was one of the premier physical, shutdown tandems for the Ottawa Senators in the early 2000s. Neither provides very much in the offensive zone, with Phillips boasting an adjusted .20PPG and Volchenkov an adjusted .22PPG. Meanwhile, Giles boasts an adjusted .22PPG and Armstrong an adjusted .22PPG also. Slight advantage offensively towards the Bulldogs in terms of the first pairings, but neither will be relied on to provide all that much in the offensive zone. In terms of the physical side of things, Bob Armstrong has 2 top 10s in PIM, something that neither of the other 3 have. All 4 are noted physical players, with Volchenkov and Giles being hip check specialists. Another thing that Armstrong has that neither Queen's defenseman has is an All Star game nomination (yes, it was merit based). Let's look at all star finishes. Volchenkov: 21 Phillips: 17, 19 Giles: 16, 18, 24, 26 Armstrong: None recorded, in those early days only the very top are known. So, Giles has the most impressive record in all star voting. Combined with having the best all star voting record, the only All Star Game selection, and a slightly better offensive record, the Philadelphia pairing looks good.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Here's a quick breakdown about the rest of the defensive pairings:
Starikov-Stelnov vs. Marshall-McKenny

This one is very difficult. Starikov and Stelnov were a pairing for the Soviets in the '80s both domestically and internationally, so they have some familiarity with each other. They were chiefly the 3rd pairing internationally on the Russian teams. Although you say that Starikov was chiefly a defensive defenseman, I find that very hard to believe considering how many points he put up. It appears to me that it was Stelnov that was the defensive defenseman, and Starikov the offensive defenseman. Either way, they look to be a very formidable 2nd pairing. But, how do they compare with Marshall and McKenny? I'm not really sure. One thing that Marshall-McKenny has going for them is that they match up with their stick sides, Marshall a lefty and McKenny a righty while Starikov and Stelnov are both lefties. McKenny and Marshall both have all star votes, with Marshall being 15th and 16th and McKenny 16th. McKenny was also elected to an All Star game by merit. McKenny was consistently the #1 or #2 defenseman in Toronto during his peak, and Marshall was renowned as a shot blocker, leader, and a stay at home defenseman who could still "provide crisp outlet passes to his forwards." Given these credentials, what the Philadelphia pairing have proven against quality competition compared to the question marks of the Soviets give Philadelphia the edge here.

Eddolls-Romishevsky vs. Brydge-Johnsson

-Eddolls has one top 10 in points among defensemen, Bill Brydge has 3. Brydge also brings more physicality to the table, evidenced by the many quotes about his fine defensive play and penalty minutes. He was also a "3rd team" All Star, being voted 3rd in all star voting among defensemen in 32-33, a distinction that Eddolls doesn't have. Offensively and physically, Brydge has the clear edge, and to say they are even defensively would be generous on my part. So, Brydge>Eddolls. Romishevsky is an unknown quantity. He has some all star credentials, but those records are incomplete, so his accomplishments may seem impressive now, but if we had the full record, they likely would not be as distinguishing. He'll be fine as a bottom pairing defenseman in this, but Kim Johnsson is a superior player. 6 times a #1 defenseman on his team, 3 top 21 point finishes among defensemen in a large NHL, and being voted the 11th and 16th best defenseman in the NHL, there is no question here. Johnsson's credentials are clear and he is a much more known quantity, and is a superior player. Overall, Philadelphia's defense is going to be what wins us this series. Our first pairing is better, our 2nd pairing is much more proven against quality competition and is a known (and very good) quantity, and our 3rd pairing boasts two guys that could pass as top pairing defensemen in this given their credentials.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Philadelphia will win this series because:

-We have better top finishes in our top 6 compared to Queen's University, and is more explosive offensively compared to the defense-first Queen's top 6.
-Our defense boasts 3 extremely good pairings, and have better award credentials and point finishes compared to the Queen's defense.
-We bring an amazing amount of playoff experience to the table, and almost every player on our roster has an impressive playoff record of some kind, whether it's games played, a higher PPG in the playoffs, a significant individual performance, or winning multiple cups.

 

[VanIslander]

Are Eddolls and the Soviet as good as a tough guy that has 3 top 10 point finishes among defensemen, and a #1 defenseman for a very good Flyers team?

Romishevsky was a three-time 2nd or 3rd team all-star in the Soviet league between 1968-1971 and was clearly one of the top-6 Soviets for half a decade, sitting out the '72 Summit Series as one of the stars who were protesting.

Eddolls, the NYR captain, was an off-the-board first-time-ATD-subboard original pick:

Queen's University goes off the board to select defenseman Frank Eddolls, the New York Rangers captain in 1950-51, the same year he played in the NHL all-star game, in the middle of five solid NHL seasons in The Big Apple. He won the Memorial Cup before going to war, and he was so well regarded that Ted Kennedy was traded to Toronto to get his rights, and Eddolls won the Stanley Cup in Montreal in 1946 before his best years as a NYR. Montreal lost in trading HOFer Kennedy for him and lost again in trading O'Connor and later-blooming Eddolls to NY for three duds in what are two of the worst Hab trades of the era.

In 1947-48, Eddolls joined the New York Rangers where he would enjoy five strong NHL seasons. In his first year with the club, he scored 19 points and served as the team's captain in 1950-51.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=12534

According to Dick Irvin in his book Now Back to You Dick: Two Lifetimes in Hockey:

Eddolls is known as one of the very few defensemen that consistently succeeded in defending the legendary Maurice "Rocket" Richard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eddolls

According to Who's Who in Hockey:

Eddolls became one of the best defensemen in the NHL... Thanks to Eddolls, the Rangers made the playoffs in 1947-48 for the first time in six years... starred for the New Yorkers in the 1950 playoffs when the Rangers took the Red Wings to the seventh game of the finals

http://books.google.ca/books?id=wpb...0CDMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=frank eddolls&f=false

Eddolls spent the last five NHL seasons of his playing career with the Broadway Blueshirts, one of the Rangers’ most popular and effective performers

http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/player/Frank-Eddolls

 

[VanIslander]

Does Mac Colville belong on a 1st line, even as a glue, defensive presence?

His offensive ability is quite low. His best finishes were a 25 and 31 in points in the O6 era, which is certainly not impressive by this draft's standards. He's certainly good defensively, but I can't help but think that he will be rather ineffective next to two much more talented players than he in Barlow and Shepelev. He may slow them down and reduce their effectiveness by not being able to keep up.

Colville was a longtime member of one of the top lines in hockey: The Bread Line so don't you try and imply he can't handle top line role player duties at the AAA level. he's playing here with two other top liners in Barlow, three-time Stanley Cup hero, and Shepelev, two-time Canada Cup hero and 5-year great play for the Soviet national team against the world's best. This line rocks. It should be obvious. The team has weaknesses, but not on the first line, no way.

Was Shepelev that good?

He had a decent peak between 81-84 where he was an important player on the national team, but he appeared to be a selfish, Vsevolod Bobrov-like player who didn't like to play defense.

He embarrassed Canada and the Czechoslovakians a few times. Yes, he was a natural left winger who was put into center ice and thrived, despite not playing the typical soviet centre ice position style, which was to be defensive, stay high, pass to wingers, conservative play. He loved to go in deep, to capitalize on openings and challenge dmen carrying the puck, natural winger moves. He is playing left wing on this AAA team, and the center is Barlow, a forward/rover who could center or roam, so the two of them out to dance and dazzle with the puck as Neil Colville and Shibicky did as Rangers, with Mac as the defensive presence and the corner guy.

Yevgeny Mishakov(183 goals in 400 games for .458/game and 48 goals in 90 games internationally, good for .527/game.) Mishakov also boasts an impressive peak of 29 goals in 35 games internationally between 1968 and 1972, despite playing on a checking line.

Your checking line Soviet vs. my scoring line Soviet... hmmm... I like them both, yours more if he was a bottom-6 guy in this draft, but fine where he is.

The battle of the two best players on either first line

Billy Barlow is described as an early star just as Gingras was, but like Gingras, very little concrete information is known about him. He was supposedly a good skater, elusive, and a good puck handler and had some good goal totals in the early Challenge Cup days. Mike Walton is a more proven commodity, with concrete information and quotes to support him being a great 1st line goalscoring center. He boasts a top 10 in goal scoring in the NHL, as well as 3 top 10s in goal scoring in his 3 seasons in the WHA, with 1, 7, and 9 finishes.

How is Barlow any less of a proven guy than Walton? Your WHA stats guy versus the two-time Stanley Cup winning star, top-10 in scoring in the 1890s. The top level talent wasn't as spread out then as in Walton's time. Barlow played with and against HHOF greats. The concrete info about him is no less than about Walton.

 

[VanIslander]

Golikov and Jackson

=

Yevgeny Mishakov and Nick Libbett

Mishakov was touted as being a pretty similar player, while bringing an intensity and physical element to the table. Here are Mishakov's stats in comparison to Golikov's: Mishakov-183 goals in 400 games for .458/game in the Soviet league and 48 goals in 90 games internationally, good for .527/game, good for 20th all-time in Soviet international hockey history. Golikov had 172 goals in 435 games in the Soviet league, good for .395 goals/game, and 54 international goals in 129 games, good for .419 goals/game. As these stats illustrate, in both the Soviet league and internationally, Mishakov was a more prolific goal scorer, despite playing on a checking line. He also boasts a peak of 29 goals in 35 games internationally between 1968 and 1972. Mishakov brings a goal scoring, physical, tough, and two-way element to my line.

Edge to Mishakov. I thought him a Bottom-6 guy, and still do ideally, but at the AAA level he seems able to handle 2nd line duties. Libett ideally should be a third liner.

Oksanen vs. Dahlen

Oksanen is a question mark while Dahlen is Dino-lite. Edge to Ulf.

 

[VanIslander]

Honestly, the series could go either way.

Philadelphia will win this series because:

-We have better top finishes in our top 6 compared to Queen's University, and is more explosive offensively compared to the defense-first Queen's top 6.
-Our defense boasts 3 extremely good pairings, and have better award credentials and point finishes compared to the Queen's defense.
-We bring an amazing amount of playoff experience to the table, and almost every player on our roster has an impressive playoff record of some kind, whether it's games played, a higher PPG in the playoffs, a significant individual performance, or winning multiple cups.

Queen's University will win this series because:

- better goaltending supported by better shutdown defense (shotblocking, chemistry, preserving lead)
- no question marks (no Oksanen, Bubnik)
- more secondary scoring (Sharp's line versus defense-only Bell)
- coaching chemistry and playoff experience (Martin won 7 playoff series in 11 postseasons; Trotz won 0 in 5 postseasons).

 

[seventieslord]

The concrete info about him is no less than about Walton.

Well, without commenting on which of the two is better (because it's truly hard to say), I have to say this is very false. There's stuff about Mike Walton practically everywhere I look. With Barlow, unfortunately, what we see is what we get.

 

[VanIslander]

I meant: The information about him is no less CONCRETE.

I was replying to "Mike Walton is a more proven commodity, with concrete information".

I also was posting at midnight after a long day so my choice of words wasn't perfect. I was not talking about quantity but quality: concreteness. WHA performances in the 1970s vs. Montreal AAA performances in the AHAC for half a decade during the 1890s early Stanley Cup challenge era.

The Golden Gaels select the earliest era star rover Billy Barlow, "the most graceful skater of the party" who "gave a brilliant exhibition of skating backwards", "--Barlow was always a shadow that could not be shaken off, and turned the corners so cleverly and swiftly that he was always able to hold to his companion, and seemed able to pass him at any time if he chose to do so."

ALL TIME GOAL SCORING LIST AT THE END OF THE 1899 SEASON:
1. Bob McDougall (VICS) 49
2. A. E. "Dolly" Swift (Que) 37
3. Clary MacKerrow (MAAA) 34
4. Billy Barlow (MAAA) 33
5. Haviland Routh (MAAA) 32
6. Graham Drinkwater (Vics) 28

Barlow is credited with scoring the first Stanley Cup-winning goal in history in the final playoff match of 1894, actually scoring twice in each of the two playoff games, heralded as the hero of the game.

The year before, in 1893, he was instrumental in his team winning the Stanley Cup, which was decided based on best regular season record: "Billy Barlow was outstanding in the AAA's late season victory over Ottawa to secure first place and the Cup."

 

[VanIslander]

Queen's University wins in 6 games.