Milt Dunnell Cup Finals 2022: Montreal Canadians (1) vs. Vancouver Millionaires (2)

[ResilientBeast]

Montreal Canadiens (1 Seed)

Captain: Ted Kennedy
Assistant: Dit Clapper
Assistant: Fern Flaman

HEAD COACH

Anatoli Tarasov
Arkady Chernyshev

ROSTER

Bobby Hull - Ted Kennedy (C) - Alex Maltsev
Busher Jackson - Mike Modano - Sergei Makarov
George Hay - Ryan Getzlaf - Corey Perry
Dave Andreychuk - Ken Mosdell - Bob Nevin

Sprague Cleghorn - Dit Clapper (A)
Hod Stuart - Fern Flaman (A)
Doug Mohns - Bob Goldham

Georges Vézina
Gump Worsley

Spares: Patrick Sharp, Moose Vasko

PP1: Andreychuk-Maltsev-Makarov-Hull-Cleghorn
PP2: Jackson-Modano-Getzlaf-Clapper-Stuart

PK1: Kennedy-Mosdell-Cleghorn-Clapper
PK2: Modano-Makarov-Stuart-Flaman
Goldham, Hay, Nevin

VS.

Vancouver Millionaires (2 Seed)

Captain: Eddie Gerard
Assistant: Valeri Vasiliev
Assistant: Hooley Smith

HEAD COACH
Lester Patrick

Syd Howe --- Phil Esposito --- Hooley Smith (A)
Gordon Roberts --- Connor McDavid --- Nikita Kucherov
Fred Harris --- Patrice Bergeron --- Mickey MacKay
Ilya Kovalchuk --- Igor Larionov --- Eddie Oatman

Eddie Gerard (C) - Bobby Orr
Cyclone Taylor - Valeri Vasiliev (A)
Mike Grant - Cy Wentworth

Vladislav Tretiak
Andrei Vasilevskiy

Spares: Frank Patrick, D ; Tommy Smith, LW/C ; Mark Stone, RW

PP1: McDavid --- Esposito --- Kucherov --- Taylor --- Orr
PP2: Howe --- MacKay --- Roberts --- Kovalchuk --- Orr/Taylor
PK1: Smith --- Bergeron --- Gerard --- Orr
PK2: MacKay --- Howe --- Vasiliev --- Wentworth

Click to read more...

 

[ResilientBeast]

Congratulations @BenchBrawl and @Sturminator

Good luck to you guys

 

[Sturminator]

Congratulations @BenchBrawl and @Sturminator

Good luck to you guys

Same to you boys. Should be an exciting series.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Congratulations @BenchBrawl and @Sturminator

Good luck to you guys

Congrats to you guys on making the ATD Finals. Good luck and here's to a good series. Cheers!

 

[Sturminator]

My initial thoughts on this series:

1) In addition to home ice, Montreal has the advantage of greater rest. The Habs have ended every series thus far in six games, while Vancouver is coming off of hard-fought seven game wins in both of the last two rounds.

2) This series looks a lot like the old Bruins vs. Habs playoff tilts of the post-expansion era: a high-octane Orr/Esposito team against a more balanced squad with two-way pivots on every line. We all know how those contests turned out. The teams that beat those Bruins in real life (also including the Flyers) had strong team-wide defensive structures and centers who could harass Orr in transition.

 

[rmartin65]

First- here's to a good series, @Sturminator and @BenchBrawl ! It is interesting to note that the two teams with co-GMs were the ones to advance to the Finals this year.

My initial thoughts on this series:

1) In addition to home ice, Montreal has the advantage of greater rest. The Habs have ended every series thus far in six games, while Vancouver is coming off of hard-fought seven game wins in both of the last two rounds.

Interestingly, it appears that (at least as far back as I have checked) rest hasn't really influenced who wins the Stanley Cup Finals one way or the other:

2021- Tampa Bay wins- Tampa Bay played 23 games, Montreal 22
2020- Tampa Bay wins- Tampa Bay played 25 games, Dallas 27
2019- St. Louis wins- St. Louis played 26 games, Boston 24
2018- Washington wins- Washington played 24 games, Vegas 20
2017- Pittsburgh wins- Pittsburgh played 24 games, Nashville 22
2016- Pittsburgh wins- Pittsburgh and San Jose each played 24 games
2015- Chicago wins- Chicago 23 games, Tampa Bay played 26
2014- Los Angeles wins- LA played 26 games, New York played 25
2013- Chicago wins- Chicago played 23 games, Boston played 22
2012- Los Angeles wins- LA played 20 games, New Jersey played 24

Summing up the last 10 years, the team with more games played actually ended up winning the Cup 6/9 times (the sample is out of 9 instead of 10, since the 2016 finals saw both teams have the same amount of games). So, like I said- I don't think more rest is actually something that really moves the needle.

To address your other point- yes, Montreal has the home ice advantage in this series. I'd argue, however, that Vancouver has the superior coach in this matchup.

2) This series looks a lot like the old Bruins vs. Habs playoff tilts of the post-expansion era: a high-octane Orr/Esposito team against a more balanced squad with two-way pivots on every line. We all know how those contests turned out. The teams that beat those Bruins in real life (also including the Flyers) had strong team-wide defensive structures and centers who could harass Orr in transition.

I'm not sure this is a valid comparison here. For one, Vancouver has supplied far more support (even on a relative basis) to Esposito and Orr than they ever had in real life. Whereas Esposito and Orr were really the only major offensive threats on those Bruins teams, Vancouver can boast "secondary" offense from Taylor, McDavid, and Kucherov. Additionally, Vancouver's checking line is superior (again, both in terms of raw skill and compared to ATD talent) to what Boston had. Finally, the defensive partners that Taylor and Orr have here in Vancouver outstrip the level of talent that Orr had in real life... unless you want to argue that Gerard or Vasiliev are no more than Dallas Smith level of defenders.

EDIT: I compared the ATD Montreal team to the wrong Habs team in the following section.
Pivoting to Montreal, I don't think the comparison crosses over there, either. For one, Kennedy, for as good as he was, was not a great skater, while 70s Habs (and Flyers) centers were. Could he keep up with Orr (or Taylor, or McDavid) up and down the ice? I don't think so. Modano is would like have more success, but he was not the same quality of defensive player as the guys who historically gave Orr trouble. Moving on, those 70s Habs teams also have the Big 3 on D. Where is ATD Montreal's version of the Big 3? Cleghorn, Clapper, and Stuart don't measure up to Robinson, Savard, and Lapointe at the ATD level. And that's not even getting into the additional depth d-men that those 70s Habs teams had. I'd argue that Vancouver actually has the better Big 3 than ATD Montreal.

Lastly, I'd like to talk about goaltending. Whereas those 70s Habs teams had the best goalie in the league (Dryden), this ATD Montreal team has Vezina. And while Vezina is definitely an all-time great, he is clearly several notches below Dryden in the all-time rankings. On the flip side, Vancouver markedly improves upon the level of goaltending that those Orr/Esposito Bruins teams had by drafting Tretiak,. As a result, Vancouver has the advantage in goaltending in the matchup.

In sum- the historical comparison you made doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I'd argue that Vancouver actually has the better Big 3 than ATD Montreal.

Given our team construction this isn't even a hot take, it's a fact

We have the best defenseman in the series, and then I'd say the 3rd, (Taylor, I realize this is controversial) 5th (Vasiliev) and 6th (Gerard) all in our top 4 and the gap between Clapper and Vasiliev/Gerard is not particularly large.

 

[Sturminator]

I'm not sure this is a valid comparison here. For one, Vancouver has supplied far more support (even on a relative basis) to Esposito and Orr than they ever had in real life. Whereas Esposito and Orr were really the only major offensive threats on those Bruins teams, Vancouver can boast "secondary" offense from Taylor, McDavid, and Kucherov. Additionally, Vancouver's checking line is superior (again, both in terms of raw skill and compared to ATD talent) to what Boston had. Finally, the defensive partners that Taylor and Orr have here in Vancouver outstrip the level of talent that Orr had in real life... unless you want to argue that Gerard or Vasiliev are no more than Dallas Smith level of defenders.

You are grossly mischaracterizing those Boston teams. The 2nd line was strong...mostly Bucyk - Stanfield - MacKenzie, though the Bruins always shifted their RWs around a bit. Did you forget they had a hall of famer on the second unit? The Boston third line was anchored by ATD fixtures Ed Westfall and Derek Sanderson, with Don Marcotte joining the unit full time later on. They had a much better group of forwards, top-to-bottom, than you're giving them credit for here.

Dallas Smith was a better player than you seem to acknowledge...actually quite similar to Eddie Gerard in terms of relative value in the league. He ended up with a couple top-10 Norris finishes for a reason. I'll concede that Vasiliev is better here than the other Smith (Rick) was for Boston as a #4, though Cyclone Taylor on the blueline is another can of worms.

It's also worth noting that Bobby Orr regularly averaged 40+ minutes of icetime per game early in his career when he met those Habs teams, and there's no way he pulls anything close to that here. You won't be able to use Orr as a safety blanket at even-strength the way those Boston teams did in real life.

 

[ResilientBeast]

You are grossly mischaracterizing those Boston teams

And saying your team is the 70s Habs is somewhat similar lol

 

[ResilientBeast]

Did you forget they had a hall of famer on the second unit?

Oh man, you're trying to construct a narrative that somehow we're just the Esposito/Orr show while you guys are deep like the 70s Habs which is exceedingly untrue.

Dallas Smith was a better player than you seem to acknowledge...actually quite similar to Eddie Gerard in terms of relative value in the league. He ended up with a couple top-10 Norris finishes for a reason. I'll concede that Vasiliev is better here than the other Smith (Rick) was for Boston as a #4, though Cyclone Taylor on the blueline is another can of worms.

Man I love these statements because I can't imagine who you think Clapper, Stuart and Flaman are "relative to the league" if Gerard and Vasiliev are comparable to the other members of the 70s Bruins blueline, because it sure as shit isn't the 70s Habs

It's also worth noting that Bobby Orr regularly averaged 40+ minutes of icetime per game early in his career when he met those Habs teams, and there's no way he pulls anything close to that here. You won't be able to use Orr as a safety blanket at even-strength the way those Boston teams did in real life.

Because maybe just maybe....our team is deeper than the early Orr Bruins it won't be necessary.

 

[Sturminator]

Pivoting to Montreal, I don't think the comparison crosses over there, either. For one, Kennedy, for as good as he was, was not a great skater, while 70s Habs (and Flyers) centers were. Could he keep up with Orr (or Taylor, or McDavid) up and down the ice? I don't think so. Modano is would like have more success, but he was not the same quality of defensive player as the guys who historically gave Orr trouble. Moving on, those 70s Habs teams also have the Big 3 on D. Where is ATD Montreal's version of the Big 3? Cleghorn, Clapper, and Stuart don't measure up to Robinson, Savard, and Lapointe at the ATD level. And that's not even getting into the additional depth d-men that those 70s Habs teams had. I'd argue that Vancouver actually has the better Big 3 than ATD Montreal.

Lastly, I'd like to talk about goaltending. Whereas those 70s Habs teams had the best goalie in the league (Dryden), this ATD Montreal team has Vezina. And while Vezina is definitely an all-time great, he is clearly several notches below Dryden in the all-time rankings. On the flip side, Vancouver markedly improves upon the level of goaltending that those Orr/Esposito Bruins teams had by drafting Tretiak,. As a result, Vancouver has the advantage in goaltending in the matchup.

You're getting your history badly wrong here.

The Bruins and Habs met three times in the playoffs during that era: 1968, 1969, and 1971. That was a different generation of Habs players than you seem to think it was. Of the players you mention, only Serge Savard actually played a meaningful role in those playoff contests, and he missed the entirety of the 1971 playoffs with a leg injury.

The Habs had one great skating center: Henri Richard. Other than him, their mainstays were an old Jean Beliveau, followed by some mix of Pete Mahovlich, Jacques Lemaire and Ralph Backstrom. Backstrom could certainly skate, but his role in the lineup was very up-and-down, and he was traded away in 1971, anyway.

---

The Flyers centers were great skaters?! You must know better than this. Bobby Clarke was a very similar skater to Ted Kennedy...a guy who "got where he was going" without being particularly fast or elegant in how he got there. Rick MacLeish was a pretty average skater, and none of the other centers (Terry Crisp and whoever else they ran out there) was particularly swift, either.

---

Ken Dryden was a rookie in 1971. Before that, it was the Vachon/Worsley platoon. Again, you seem to be talking about a different Habs team than the one that actually met those Bruins in the playoffs.

 

[ResilientBeast]

You're getting your history badly wrong here.

The Bruins and Habs met three times in the playoffs during that era: 1968, 1969, and 1971. That was a different generation of Habs players than you seem to think it was. Of the players you mention, only Serge Savard actually played a meaningful role in those playoff contests, and he missed the entirety of the 1971 playoffs with a leg injury.

The Habs had one great skating center: Henri Richard. Other than him, their mainstays were an old Jean Beliveau, followed by some mix of Pete Mahovlich, Jacques Lemaire and Ralph Backstrom. Backstrom could certainly skate, but his role in the lineup was very up-and-down, and he was traded away in 1971, anyway.

---

The Flyers centers were great skaters?! You must know better than this. Bobby Clarke was a very similar skater to Ted Kennedy...a guy who "got where he was going" without being particularly fast or elegant in how he got there. Rick MacLeish was a pretty average skater, and none of the other centers (Terry Crisp and whoever else they ran out there) was particularly swift, either.

---

Ken Dryden was a rookie in 1971. Before that, it was the Vachon/Worsley platoon. Again, you seem to be talking about a different Habs team than the one that actually met those Bruins in the playoffs.

So sorry you're saying that our team with Bobby Orr is comparable to the teams Orr played with when he was 19 and 20 years old? (68/69)

Before he became the clearcut best player in the league? And the outcomes of those series is somehow representative of this specific matchup?

I definitely got my Habs timeline messed up, but somehow the comparison about how the Habs beat Bobby Orr are even worse

Edit: And even in 1971 when they lost to the Habs Esposito and Orr had 12 and 10 points in 7 games. So they weren't really "shutdown" lol

 

[rmartin65]

You are grossly mischaracterizing those Boston teams. The 2nd line was strong...mostly Bucyk - Stanfield - MacKenzie, though the Bruins always shifted their RWs around a bit. Did you forget they had a hall of famer on the second unit? The Boston third line was anchored by ATD fixtures Ed Westfall and Derek Sanderson, with Don Marcotte joining the unit full time later on. They had a much better group of forwards, top-to-bottom, than you're giving them credit for here.

It was not particularly strong, not when one compares it to our 2nd line. Bucyk is the only guy on that second line that was deemed ATD worthy this year. McDavid, and Kucherov, are both far better creators of offense, even relative to ATD competition, than any of those guys were.

Westfall and Sanderson were strong two-way/defensive players, but better than Bergeron and MacKay? Not in my book.

Dallas Smith was a better player than you seem to acknowledge...actually quite similar to Eddie Gerard in terms of relative value in the league. He ended up with a couple top-10 Norris finishes for a reason. I'll concede that Vasiliev is better here than the other Smith (Rick) was for Boston as a #4, though Cyclone Taylor on the blueline is another can of worms.

I'm sorry, Gerard is a better ATD player than Smith was in real life. Back in 2017, you yourself ranked Gerard as roughly the 30th best defenseman of all time (Link). Do you believe that Smith was better than that?

It's also worth noting that Bobby Orr regularly averaged 40+ minutes of icetime per game early in his career when he met those Habs teams, and there's no way he pulls anything close to that here. You won't be able to use Orr as a safety blanket at even-strength the way those Boston teams did in real life.

As @ResilientBeast pointed out, Vancouver is significantly deeper than those Bruins teams. Additionally, I'd argue that this ATD Montreal team is not as deep (relatively, of course) as the Habs teams you claim them to be.

 

[rmartin65]

You're getting your history badly wrong here.

You are correct- I was focusing on the wrong Habs team. I had the 70s in my head and didn't fact check.

 

[Sturminator]

So sorry you're saying that our team with Bobby Orr is comparable to the teams Orr played with when he was 19 and 20 years old? (68/69)

Before he became the clearcut best player in the league? And the outcomes of those series is somehow representative of this specific matchup?

I definitely got my Habs timeline messed up, but somehow the comparison about how the Habs beat Bobby Orr are even worse

Edit: And even in 1971 when they lost to the Habs Esposito and Orr had 12 and 10 points in 7 games. So they weren't really "shutdown" lol

Bobby Orr won the Norris trophy in 1968 and 1969. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. He was also a -2 in that 1971 series against the Habs, mon frère.

The comparison was meant to be stylistic...an illustration of the fact that the teams that beat Orr's Bruins in the playoffs were those that had strong team-wide defensive structures, and centers who could clog up Boston's transition game. Your opponent in this round is exactly that sort of team.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Bobby Orr won the Norris trophy in 1968 and 1969. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. He was also a -2 in that 1971 series against the Habs, mon frère.

The comparison was meant to be stylistic...an illustration of the fact that the teams that beat Orr's Bruins in the playoffs were those that had strong team-wide defensive structures, and centers who could clog up Boston's transition game. Your opponent in this round is exactly that sort of team.

Sure I can except stylistic comparisons but not sure how much water they can actually hold.

If we'd like to do stylistic comparisons we can also discuss the failure of teams whose best players are wingers in the playoffs.

And again I take issue with that sort of line of reasoning as it implies the relative depth of Vancouver is somewhat comparable to what the Bruins had at the time which @rmartin65 and I disagree quite strongly with

 

[Sturminator]

Westfall and Sanderson were strong two-way/defensive players, but better than Bergeron and MacKay? Not in my book.

I'm sorry, Gerard is a better ATD player than Smith was in real life. Back in 2017, you yourself ranked Gerard as roughly the 30th best defenseman of all time (Link). Do you believe that Smith was better than that?

Westfall and Sanderson were the core of what was either the best or second best 3rd line in the league at that time, and Sanderson was almost certainly the league's best 3rd line center.

Heh...Dallas Smith was easily better than the 30th best defenseman in the league during the heyday of those old Bruins teams. If you want to go there, relative to the competition he faced, he was better than Gerard is in this ATD.

It's, like, all relative, man.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Bobby Hull - Ted Kennedy (C) - Alex Maltsev

So looking at Montreal's top 6, it was either you or TDMM who said my entry in 2019 that they didn't really like turning Ted Kennedy into Steve Ruccin but that is exactly what you guys did this year. It make sense with Bobby Hull that you don't want your center to do any more than the dirty work which he'll excel at.

But he a is strong skater but not a fast skater by any stretch of the imagination. So when down low how do you expect Kennedy to contribute for and cover for his wingers defensively if he needs to do all dirty work down low?

If you think Kennedy is going to clog our team in transition despite somehow starting every rush down low I feel pretty good about Orr/Taylor/McDavid/MacKay blowing passed him

My Tarasov despite having him last year is rusty, I don't recall him being a particularly matchuppy coach, is that correct @Sturminator ?

While Lester is certainly one to make key adjustments and changes

 

[ResilientBeast]

Heh...Dallas Smith was easily better than the 30th best defenseman in the league during the heyday of those old Bruins teams. If you want to go there, relative to the competition he faced, he was better than Gerard is in this ATD.

It's, like, all relative, man.

Man Flaman would probably be in the WHA or the AHL then....comparatively speaking of course

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think @Hawkey Town 18 's comments about the usage of Modano last series also need to be brought back up.

You're turned two centers into Steve Ruccin essentially. The play on that line is going to run through Makarov which as HT pointed out isn't how Modano was most effective offensively. He also doesn't have the defensive support of Lehtinen flattering his defensive play.

He has a superhuman job like Kennedy of doing everything to make his wingers successful.

 

[ResilientBeast]

@tabness mentioned it in his series but I actually think Vancouver has the right sets of wingers for Bobby Hull.

Hooley Smith can mug him physically, and MacKay can definitely skate with him.

Both are noted hook checkers playing on the wing *drink* and should be able to help us keep Hull and the puck out of dangerous areas and disrupt him in transition.

Harris and Howe are both physical and can work on taking Maltsev out of the game by engaging with him physically.

 

[Sturminator]

If we'd like to do stylistic comparisons we can also discuss the failure of teams whose best players are wingers in the playoffs.

This is a non-argument.

But since we're talking about Montreal's team composition, it's worth noting that almost all of Tarasov's best players were wingers. This is exactly the sort of team that he had success with in real life. One has to go outside the NHL to find a good historical comparison for this Habs team, but that's only because north americans almost always put their best forwards at center.

 

[Sturminator]

You're turned two centers into Steve Ruccin essentially. The play on that line is going to run through Makarov which as HT pointed out isn't how Modano was most effective offensively. He also doesn't have the defensive support of Lehtinen flattering his defensive play.

Since we're on the topic of Montreal's 2nd line, I guess now is the time to bring up the additional information we're recently unearthed about Busher Jackson's checking. It seems that MacLean's magazine did annual all-star teams (constructed out of anonymous votes by the NHL coaches) for the 1935-1941 time period. Here's what they had to say about Busher Jackson for the years they selected him.

1935:

We Nominate | Maclean's | April 15 1935

The All Stars of 1934-35 as picked by managers and coaches of the N. H. L.

archive.macleans.ca

Harvey Jackson, raven-thatched left wing of the Toronto Maple Leafs, has been frequently mentioned by such sterling judges of players as Joe Simpson, manager of the New York Americans, as the finest player he has ever seen. Simpson claims there is nothing on the ice Jackson cannot do.

This is in reference to the 1934 quote from Bullet Joe (in Jackson's bio this year) referring to him as a "Grade-A backchecker".

1937:

WE NOMINATE . . | Maclean's | April 1st 1937

archive.macleans.ca

The forward line, if anything, is better than last season’s, because in Martin Barry and Larry Aurie of the Red Wings, and Harvey “Busher” Jackson of the Toronto Maple Leafs, the team boasts a line which is not only tops in scoring, but would also be one of the best back-checking trios in the game.

1938:

WE NOMINATE.. | Maclean's | APRIL 1 1938

archive.macleans.ca

Jackson on Third Line
...
But although our third line has a lot of defensive ability, it is also a high-scoring trio.
...
We were a little surprised to find Harvey Jackson on the third line, but that is where hockey’s supreme court have placed him and they should know. We thought that Harvey was enjoying an excellent season, and for a while he was leading in the poll. But the final consensus shows him finishing third with nine points, only two less than Paul Thompson.

Harvey can still do everything a great hockey player is supposed to be able to do, and he frequently crosses up his opponents and surprises the spectators by doing the unusual which invariably results in a goal or a real threat.

There's a good deal of evidence at this point that Busher Jackson was considered a strong backchecker during his prime. And in case you're wondering...MacLean's directly criticizes Gordie Drillon's backchecking in that 1938 article. They clearly weren't afraid of throwing shade when appropriate.

Sergei Makarov's reputation as an open-ice checker shouldn't require a whole lot of debate. Montreal's 2nd line is a better team-checking unit than you give it credit for, and the business about Modano's offensive role is just drunk logic. Better linemates aren't going to make him worse offensively. Vancouver's wide-open style of hockey actually plays perfectly into the the strengths of this line, which will counter-attack with tremendous speed.

 

[Sturminator]

Hooley Smith can mug him physically, and MacKay can definitely skate with him.

The idea that Hooley Smith will "mug" Bobby Hull is silly, unless you mean he'll draw a lot of penalties, which he might. You realize this is Bobby Hull we're talking about, right? Teams threw every checker they had at Hull for his entire career, and still he was an outstanding performer in the playoffs.

Not sure why you'd bring up Mickey MacKay, who faces an awful matchup here. MacKay was soft and fragile, and he's going against a very physical blueline, not to mention Hull and Jackson, both of whom can easily overpower him. Who will stick up for MacKay in this series? Montreal is easliy the tougher of the two teams.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The idea that Hooley Smith will "mug" Bobby Hull is silly, unless you mean he'll draw a lot of penalties, which he might. You realize this is Bobby Hull we're talking about, right? Teams threw every checker they had at Hull for his entire career, and still he was an outstanding performer in the playoffs.

Not sure why you'd bring up Mickey MacKay, who faces an awful matchup here. MacKay was soft and fragile, and he's going against a very physical blueline, not to mention Hull and Jackson, both of whom can easily overpower him. Who will stick up for MacKay in this series? Montreal is easliy the tougher of the two teams.

Bobby Hull is physically very strong and a speedy skater. Hooley absolutely won't get pushed around by his physical play and can absolutely check him.

MacKay can absolutely go stride for stride with Hull and harass him in transition with an active stick. I think calling MacKay "fragile" is a step to far, he took a violent cheapshot from Cully Wilson and that's the only major injury that springs to mind. Similarly to Frank Boucher, MacKay would occasionally join in the savagery of the era, but it wasn't a frequent occurrence.

I'd use very similar words to describe Maltsev, especially soft

Hull was definitely a good playoff performer, just with overall underwhelming results in the end, but much like how you can't stop Bobby Orr/Cyclone Taylor we can't hope to stop Hull from getting his, but we have the right personnel to make his life as uncomfortable as possible.

Edit: Who will stand up for MacKay? We have plenty of options for that, I'm sure Hooley and Cleghorn will reacquaint themselves early on in the series, but no one else on Montreal is actively a dirty player so I'm not particularly worried about that. But Gerard, Hooley, Harris, Oatman and even Howe and Roberts and tough enough that it's really a non-issue.