Mini ATD (1 Player) Quarterfinals: Quebec Bulldogs vs. Visa Smallenfreudeners

[Hawkey Town 18]

Les Bulldogs De Québec

Coach: Toe Blake

Ted Lindsay (A) - Mark Messier (C) - Guy Lafleur
Johnny Bucyk - Sidney Crosby - Sergei Makarov
Frank Mahovlich - Eric Lindros - Bryan Hextall Sr
Craig Ramsay - Rod Brind'Amour - Dave Taylor


Denis Potvin (A) - Sprague Cleghorn
Duncan Keith - Chris Pronger
Harvey Pulford - Sergei Zubov

Martin Brodeur
Roberto Luongo

PP1: Makarov - Messier - Lafleur - Potvin - Cleghorn
PP2: Lindsay - Crosby - Mahovlich - Zubov - Pronger
PP3: Bucyk - Lindros - Hextall Sr

PK1: Brind'Amour - Ramsay - Pronger - Potvin
PK2: Messier - Lindsay - Cleghorn/Keith - Pulford/Keith
PK3: Crosby - Taylor

Estimated ice-time:

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Messier | 13.5 | 3 | 2 | 18.5
Lafleur | 13.5 | 5 | 0 | 18.5
Lindsay | 13.5 | 2 | 2 | 17.5
Crosby | 13.5 | 3 | 1 | 17.5
Makarov | 13.5 | 3| 0 | 16.5
Mahovlich| 13.5 | 2 | 0 | 15.5
Bucyk | 12.5 | 1| 0 | 13.5
Lindros | 12.5 | 1| 0 | 13.5
Hextall Sr| 12.5 | 1 | 0 | 13.5
Brind'Amour| 6.5 | 0 | 4| 10.5
Ramsay| 6.5 | 0 | 4 | 10.5
Taylor| 6.5 | 0 | 1| 7.5
TOTAL | 138 | 21 | 14 | 173

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Potvin | 19 | 5 | 3 | 27
Cleghorn | 19 | 3 | 2 | 24
Pronger | 17 | 2 | 3 | 22
Keith | 17 | 1 | 3 | 21
Pulford| 10.5 | 0 | 3 | 13.5
Zubov | 9.5 | 3 | 0 | 12.5
TOTAL | 92 | 14 | 14 | 120

VS.



Visa Smallenfreudeners

Coach: Tommy Ivan

Anatoli Firsov (USSR) - Bryan Trottier (A) (NYI) - Maurice Richard (MTL)
Bobby Hull (CBH) - Frank Nighbor (A) (OTT) - Vaclav Nedomansky (CSSR)
Keith Tkachuk (WPG/PHX) - Frank Boucher (NYR) - Brett Hull (STL)
John Madden (NJD) - Don Luce (BUF) - Jimmy Ward (MTM)

Mark Howe (PHI) - Ray Bourque (C) (BOS)
Paul Coffey (EDM) - Tim Horton (TOR)
Hod Stuart (pre-NHL) - Drew Doughty (LAK)

Terry Sawchuk (DET)
Miikka Kiprusoff (CAL)

PP1: Tkachuk - Trottier - Richard - Bo. Hull - Bourque
PP2: Firsov - Boucher - Br. Hull - Coffey - Stuart


PK1: Luce - Nighbor - Bourque - Horton
PK2: Trottier - Madden - Howe - Stuart

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Bobby Hull|15|4|0|19
Maurice Richard|15|4|0|19
Bryan Trottier|14|3|2|19
Frank Nighbor|14|0|5|19
Anatoli Firsov|14|2|0|16
Frank Boucher|12|4|0|16
Brett Hull|12|3|0|15
Keith Tkachuk|11|4|0|15
Vaclav Nedomansky|13|0|0|13
Don Luce|6|0|4|10
John Madden|6|0|3|9
Jimmy Ward|6|0|0|6

It isn't figured into the minutes chart but Ward will likely do some PK'ing as well. Probably in place of Trottier.

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Ray Bourque|18|5|4|27
Tim Horton|19|0|4|23
Paul Coffey|17|3|0|20
Mark Howe|16|0|3|19
Hod Stuart|12|2|3|16
Drew Doughty|11|0|0|11

NOTE: This is all a rough estimate. Ivan may decide to do different things based on the matchups.
​

Click to read more...

 

[jarek]

To address concerns from HT18, here is my updated minutes charts:

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Bobby Hull|15|4|0|19
Maurice Richard|15|4|0|19
Bryan Trottier|14|3|2|19
Frank Nighbor|14|0|5|19
Anatoli Firsov|14|2|0|16
Frank Boucher|12|4|0|16
Brett Hull|12|3|0|15
Keith Tkachuk|11|4|0|15
Vaclav Nedomansky|13|0|0|13
Don Luce|6|0|4|10
John Madden|6|0|3|9
Jimmy Ward|6|0|0|6

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Ray Bourque|18|5|4|27
Tim Horton|19|0|4|23
Paul Coffey|17|3|0|20
Mark Howe|16|0|3|19
Hod Stuart|12|2|3|16
Drew Doughty|11|0|0|11

Additionally, the following is my updated PP:

PP1: Tkachuk - Trottier - Richard - Bo. Hull - Bourque
PP2: Firsov - Boucher - Br. Hull - Coffey - Stuart

Does this look more reasonable?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Minutes look good, although I'd play Bourque more at ES, he can handle 27 minutes

 

[jarek]

Minutes look good, although I'd play Bourque more at ES, he can handle 27 minutes

So you criticized the idea of playing him 28 minutes, but are fine with him playing 27? I don't get it.

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Ray Bourque|18|5|4|27
Tim Horton|19|0|4|23
Paul Coffey|17|3|0|20
Mark Howe|16|0|3|19
Hod Stuart|12|2|3|16
Drew Doughty|11|0|0|11

Changed again.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

So you criticized the idea of playing him 28 minutes, but are fine with him playing 27? I don't get it.

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Ray Bourque|18|5|4|27
Tim Horton|19|0|4|23
Paul Coffey|17|3|0|20
Mark Howe|16|0|3|19
Hod Stuart|12|2|3|16
Drew Doughty|11|0|0|11

Changed again.

Check my review again...


"One thing I am concerned with is the number of minutes that these top 2 pairings are playing. 28 minutes is the absolute max for a #1, and I'm fine with Bourque playing that much, it's the other Dmen I'm concerned with."

 

[BenchBrawl]

A short comment: As a whole, Visa's forward group will rely more on their top players based on the ice-time chart.This could prove problematic against a physical team like mine that will be well rested due to it's depth.

Visa also doesn't have that tough of a defensive squad.The physicality of my forward group could overwhelm them in the long run.I feel like I win the physical game in both my forward and defensemen group.

The physical game/leadership/depth combination of the Quebec Bulldogs will be a tough mental game to beat.

On another front, building lines around great duos with a weak third wheel makes it harder on the coach if he wants to give more even-strenght ice-time to the members of the duo.It's also a questionable strategy in a league this size with the quality of players always on the ice.

 

[jarek]

Check my review again...


"One thing I am concerned with is the number of minutes that these top 2 pairings are playing. 28 minutes is the absolute max for a #1, and I'm fine with Bourque playing that much, it's the other Dmen I'm concerned with."

Ah, my apologies, I missed that part somehow. Your suggestion was good either way as it led to balancing the ice team of my defense a little better.

A short comment: As a whole, Visa's forward group will rely more on their top players based on the ice-time chart.This could prove problematic against a physical team like mine that will be well rested due to it's depth.

Visa also doesn't have that tough of a defensive squad.The physicality of my forward group could overwhelm them in the long run.I feel like I win the physical game in both my forward and defensemen group.

Horton, Stuart and Doughty are all very physical. Howe and Bourque I am very confident can handle the physical game well enough. You don't need to be physical to be able to handle a physical style of game. The Sedins are an excellent example of that IMO.. most of the time, at least.

Regarding my forward ice time, you'll notice the great discrepencies only really exist on the special teams. The bulk of the PK duties, the tough minutes, will be handled by Nighbor and Luce. Nighbor likely won't have a terribly difficult job at ES playing with Hull (meaning we will largely almost always be on the attack I believe with that line), and Luce isn't getting very many ES minutes anyways.

Trottier is also getting some PK time, but if things are starting to get a little too hairy for him, we can always switch him with Ward on the PK (this will likely happen anyways). The rest of the special teams minutes are heavily being given to my top guys, but these are in theory easier minutes.

Just looking at the ES time, the top 8 guys are all within 3 minutes of each other, and while this is a lot less tight than your team, it doesn't scream of a depth problem.

Additionally, coach Ivan may decide to deploy the 4th line in a checking role more often than the ice time chart suggests, which would further reduce the load at ES of my top guys.

Beyond that, I think the physicality of your team is overrated. Your top pair, 1st line and 3rd line are the only units that might have their counterparts on the opposing team shaking in their boots. Yes, your team is more physical than mine, and probably by a fairly decent amount. I don't think it will play a critical factor in this series though.

Also, regarding this:

On another front, building lines around great duos with a weak third wheel makes it harder on the coach if he wants to give more even-strenght ice-time to the members of the duo.It's also a questionable strategy in a league this size with the quality of players always on the ice.

I believe my 3rd duo is actually stronger than yours.. your 3rd line as a whole is better, probably, and it's mostly because Hextall is better than Tkachuk. I'll take Boucher - Hull over Mahovlich - Lindros any day. It isn't a huge gap between these pairs but I question the wisdom of calling my 3rd duo weak when yours isn't any better.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Beyond that, I think the physicality of your team is overrated.

I think that's a ridiculous statement.Quebec has a huge amount of physical and intimidating players.It is easily the most physical team I have ever assembled.The defensive squad includes Potvin, Cleghorn, Pronger and Pulford.I'd say this is a strongly physical blue line.

Quebec's forward group have Lindsay, Messier, Bucyk, Lindros and Hextall Sr. in the Top 9.Crosby is also tough to play along the boards.Regardless, that's five players out of 9 which combines great skills with physicality, and in some cases nastiness.

As a whole, saying the Bulldogs' physicality won't be a factor is naive.Leadership is also another department where The Quebec Bulldogs are superior, and I love a physical and leadership combination.It's both the will and the means to go out there and do what's necessary to win hockey games.My worst assistant captain is possibly a better captain than your captain.Messier, Potvin and Lindsay is a tremendous group of leaders.

I believe my 3rd duo is actually stronger than yours.. your 3rd line as a whole is better, probably, and it's mostly because Hextall is better than Tkachuk. I'll take Boucher - Hull over Mahovlich - Lindros any day. It isn't a huge gap between these pairs but I question the wisdom of calling my 3rd duo weak when yours isn't any better.

Except I never called your 3rd line duo weak.

Here's what I said:

On another front, building lines around great duos with a weak third wheel makes it harder on the coach if he wants to give more even-strenght ice-time to the members of the duo.It's also a questionable strategy in a league this size with the quality of players always on the ice.

Anyway... as far as our 3rd line goes, Quebec's trio have a much clearer role and identity within it's own club.It's a physical, heavy line expected to wear down and tire opponents while contributing offensively.Tkachuk-Boucher-Hull rhymes with nothing as a 3rd line.It has no clear purpose except than shining a seemingly strong duo of players and a fat-ass weak ES player as a 3rd wheel.

 

[ResilientBeast]

The one thing that shouldn't be called out is the physicality of the Bulldogs IMO

Line 1 - Messier, Lindsay
Line 2 - Bucyk
Line 3 - Lindros, Hextall

On D - Potvin, Cleghorn, Pronger

A couple cheapshot artists with low tempers but they are definitely not going to be pushed around.

Visa, has players who won't let themselves get pushed around but they don't have the same personal who thrives on the physical game.

 

[jarek]

I think that's a ridiculous statement.Quebec has a huge amount of physical and intimidating players.It is easily the most physical team I have ever assembled.The defensive squad includes Potvin, Cleghorn, Pronger and Pulford.I'd say this is a strongly physical blue line.

Quebec's forward group have Lindsay, Messier, Bucyk, Lindros and Hextall Sr. in the Top 9.Crosby is also tough to play along the boards.Regardless, that's five players out of 9 which combines great skills with physicality, and in some cases nastiness.

As a whole, saying the Bulldogs' physicality won't be a factor is naive.Leadership is also another department where The Quebec Bulldogs are superior, and I love a physical and leadership combination.It's both the will and the means to go out there and do what's necessary to win hockey games.My worst assistant captain is possibly a better captain than your captain.Messier, Potvin and Lindsay is a tremendous group of leaders.



Except I never called your 3rd line duo weak.

Here's what I said:



Anyway... as far as our 3rd line goes, Quebec's trio have a much clearer role and identity within it's own club.It's a physical, heavy line expected to wear down and tire opponents while contributing offensively.Tkachuk-Boucher-Hull rhymes with nothing as a 3rd line.It has no clear purpose except than shining a seemingly strong duo of players and a fat-ass weak ES player as a 3rd wheel.

As far as my third line, you're right, I misunderstood what you said and I apologize for that. Tkachuk is there mostly to push people around and do the dirty work along the boards, while contributing on the PP. Is he a weak player here? Yes. That is the price I paid with the drafting strategy I used.

I really don't think the physicality is going to matter all that much in this series, not against my team. I don't have a team that will wilt under that kind of physical pressure. Also, if you look at recent Stanley Cup winners for example, the most prominent team, the Chicago Blackhawks, are not what you'd call a team with a huge physical presence, outside of Byfuglien the one year. Beyond that, only the LA Kings and Bruins have won cups with teams that boasted great physicality, and I would argue they won those cups more on the strength of excellent goaltending and defensive play than their physicality. Quite frankly, I just think physicality is way overrated in general.

If the game was played a lot slower, like in the 90's for example, I could see physicality being a lot more important. The play was slowed down along the boards more frequently so having bigger, stronger players often would mean you had the puck more. My team will not simply allow this to happen.

So, yes, while you have a physically imposing group that perhaps I underestimated, I just don't see how that's going to decide the series. It's a small point in your favour at best.

Anyway, regarding the identity of my 3rd line, it is another scoring line. We will come at you in waves. We are going to rely on great scoring depth and timely defensive play from our forwards, particularly the centermen, while receiving clutch play from our goaltender to win games. That is how the Smallenfreudeners are built. To this end, this is also why I made a point to put great puck movement on both my top two defense pairs, to help in the transition game. I hope this puts to rest questions about the identity of anything on my team.

The one thing that shouldn't be called out is the physicality of the Bulldogs IMO

Line 1 - Messier, Lindsay
Line 2 - Bucyk
Line 3 - Lindros, Hextall

On D - Potvin, Cleghorn, Pronger

A couple cheapshot artists with low tempers but they are definitely not going to be pushed around.

Visa, has players who won't let themselves get pushed around but they don't have the same personal who thrives on the physical game.

Yes, maybe I underestimated his group, but for the reasons I stated above, I'm just not convinced his advantage in this department actually matters all that much. I see hockey games won these days with skill, smarts and speed. Teams that win predominantly on the strength of brutality are from a bygone era.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yes, maybe I underestimated his group, but for the reasons I stated above, I'm just not convinced his advantage in this department actually matters all that much. I see hockey games won these days with skill, smarts and speed. Teams that win predominantly on the strength of brutality are from a bygone era.

I fail to see the connection between the "hockey style du jour" currently being played in the NHL and the ATD league we are competing in.The caliber of players in the ATD makes it certain that it will create it's own "hockey style".

The NHL is a copycat league.The Bruins won the cup not so long ago and their physicality was an important part of their identity.It goes in cycle and I don't think you can just say: "Look, in 2016 successful NHL teams rely on their speed and skills, and physicality is not that important, therefore the same applies in the ATD".That's a ridiculous stand.Plenty of teams have won in the history of the game in big part due to their physical superiority.And this comment about "bygone era" is hilarious considering this is an all-time draft and most of the players in our lineups are from those eras.

Quebec's physicality will be a problem for Visa.It will wear their lineup down and most minutes will be tougher for Visas' players than it will be for Quebec's.

 

[jarek]

I fail to see the connection between the "hockey style du jour" currently being played in the NHL and the ATD league we are competing in.The caliber of players in the ATD makes it certain that it will create it's own "hockey style".

The NHL is a copycat league.The Bruins won the cup not so long ago and their physicality was an important part of their identity.It goes in cycle and I don't think you can just say: "Look, in 2016 successful NHL teams rely on their speed and skills, and physicality is not that important, therefore the same applies in the ATD".That's a ridiculous stand.Plenty of teams have won in the history of the game in big part due to their physical superiority.And this comment about "bygone era" is hilarious considering this is an all-time draft and most of the players in our lineups are from those eras.

Quebec's physicality will be a problem for Visa.It will wear their lineup down and most minutes will be tougher for Visas' players than it will be for Quebec's.

Look, you don't have to agree with me. It's just one person's opinion. Everyone will have to decide for themselves how important this advantage is for you in this series.

It's true that, in general, the physically superior team will wear down the opposing team over time. This becomes especially important with players who are particularly adverse to physical play. Nobody in my lineup can really be described this way. This is mainly why I just don't see it being a major factor.

As far as leadership goes, why do you think this is going to play a pivotal role in this series exactly? You claim that your 2nd A is a better leader than my captain, but Bourque is the longest-serving captain in Bruins history, so I'm not quite sure I agree with that statement to begin with. Bourque is a fine enough captain here.

 

[jarek]

Alright so let's see how the teams stack up offensively. We're both built very similarly (3 good scoring lines, 4th line which is a non-factor offensively), so this should be fairly straight forward:

Bulldogs:

Player | Vsx7
Lafleur|104.5
Lindsay|104.4
Crosby|101.8
Messier|89.6
Bucyk|88.7
Mahovlich|87.8
Lindros|85
Hextall|80.9
Total | 742.7

Quebec averages out to 92.84 without Makarov included. I would suspect this average to get bumped up a bit with Makarov included, as I would peg him at around at least 95 (and it may be closer to 100 than 95).

Smallenfreudeners:

Player | Vsx7
Bo. Hull|108.3
Richard|102.4
Boucher|95.1
Trottier|93.7
Br. Hull|82
Tkachuk|79
Total | 560.5

Visa averages out to 93.42. I suspect this average will get dragged down very slightly once Nighbor, Firsov and Nedomansky are included. I would peg Nighbor and Firsov around a 90 and Nedomansky around 80.

I would concede a slight advantage to Quebec, very slight, offensively, at least among forwards. Given all the **** Tkachuk is getting as the third wheel on his line, he's actually got a decent VsX7 score, not far behind Brett Hull. I don't think he's dragging the line down as much as people may think.

If we then take the defensemen into account, does either team really have an edge offensively in this series? Quebec put most of their eggs into one basket on the top pair, and while it is a great pair offensively (though I would argue it has the very same question marks my pair of Cleghorn - Cameron had in the main draft), it hurts their offensive depth. My team provides a little more balance having Coffey on the 2nd pair.

I would say, as a whole in a vaccuum, the teams are more or less even offensively, but I feel like my team has better cohesion with better depth in scoring, both among forwards and the defense with respect to the offense being spread around the lineup.

---

So how does this all play out on the PP?

Quebec:

PP1: Makarov - Messier - Lafleur - Potvin - Cleghorn
PP2: Lindsay - Crosby - Mahovlich - Zubov - Pronger

Visa:

PP1: Tkachuk - Boucher* - Richard - Bo. Hull - Bourque
PP2: Firsov - Trottier* - Br. Hull - Coffey - Stuart

I think Quebec should have a decent advantage on the PP. The 1st units should be fairly even, but the 2nd units go to Quebec and it's not really close. This advantage should be mitigated by the reduced minutes the 2nd units will play compared to the 1st units.

*Please note the change in PP units. Boucher is being swapped with Trottier to get a little more muscle on the 2nd unit.

 

[jarek]

HT18, can you please note the following changes to my ice time as well as the updated PP units for my team?

PP1: Tkachuk - Boucher - Richard - Bo. Hull - Bourque
PP2: Firsov - Trottier - Br. Hull - Coffey - Stuart

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Bobby Hull|15|5|0|19
Maurice Richard|15|5|0|19
Frank Nighbor|14|0|5|19
Bryan Trottier|14|2|2|18
Frank Boucher|12|5|0|17
Anatoli Firsov|14|2|0|16
Keith Tkachuk|11|4|0|15
Brett Hull|12|2|0|14
Vaclav Nedomansky|13|0|0|13
Don Luce|6|0|4|10
John Madden|6|0|3|9
Jimmy Ward|6|0|0|6

 

[jarek]

One thing I've been wanting to compare was the PK units, as I made it a point to draft strong PK'ers on my 4th line.

Quebec:

PK1: Brind'Amour - Ramsay - Pronger - Potvin
PK2: Messier - Lindsay - Cleghorn/Keith - Pulford/Keith

Visa:

PK1: Luce - Nighbor - Bourque - Horton
PK2: Trottier - Madden - Howe - Stuart

This series probably features the 2 best PK units in the draft. The only team that may boast a comparable one is New Orleans. However, I think there is a pretty clear advantage for Visa in this respect.

The top unit, and by far the most important one, should be a fairly decisive edge to Visa. Nighbor is one of the best defensive forwards of all time and while we don't have definitive evidence of his time spent PK'ing, he was the best defensive forward of his era and would have been out killing penalties as often as possible.

Luce is in the conversation as the 2nd best PK'ing forward in this series, with Ramsay. It's unclear which of them is a better PK'er. Luce killed 66% of the penalties for teams 19% better than average, and Ramsay killed 59% of the penalties for teams 23% better than average. This comparison should be largely a wash. Maybe a slight edge to Ramsay given his sterling reputation as a defensive forward.

The next best PK'ing forward also belongs to Visa in John Madden, who killed 56% of penalties for teams 12% better than average, and comes with a great reputation as a defensive forward.

For next best, it's a bit of a wash between Messier and Brind'amour. Messier killed 41% of penalties for teams 10% better than average, and Brind'amour was 45%/1%. I'd give a very slight edge to Messier here.

Trottier and Ward likely compete for the next spot. Trottier did not PK much, just 27% for teams 6% above average, which is why he will be splitting time with Ward, who is probably comparable in this regard, maybe even better.

In summary, the PK'ing forwards look something like this:

Nighbor > Ramsay >= Luce > Madden > Messier >= Brind'amour > Ward >= Trottier

As with the PP units, the slightly lower quality (if lower at all) of Visa's 2nd PK unit is mitigated by them probably not playing that much compared to the 1st units. This decisive edge should more than mitigate any offensive advantage that Quebec can be said to have on the PP.

---

Regarding defensemen on the PK, for 1st units:

Bourque is 58%/12%, Horton is 60%/15%

Potvin is 53%/17%, Pronger is 54%/8%

A slight but clear advantage to Visa here.

2nd units:



Keith is 50%/11%, Cleghorn and Pulford are unknowns but both were regarded as two of the finest defensive players of their day

Howe is 41%/13%, Doughty is 43%/7% (he's not listed on my PK ice time but maybe he should be..), and Stuart was considered one of the best defensive defensemen of his era.

A slight advantage to Quebec here I would say, maybe a bigger advantage than I have with the 1st unit defensemen but not by a whole lot.

Given the strength of the 1st unit advantage, I would say Visa has a definitive edge on the PK here.

---

And then of course there's always goaltending, coaching, and the makeup of the teams. I don't think it's unfair to say that Quebec will take significantly more penalties than Visa in this series given the personnel on the team, as well as Ivan's ability to keep his team out of the box. This is going to be quite disruptive to the ice time chart that BB has outlined, as I don't think it truly represents what's actually going to happen. More of a problem for Quebec is that their 2nd best PK'ing forward, Messier, is likely going to be one of the players spending a fair amount of time in the box, thus weakening the on-paper strength of the PK for Quebec. Cleghorn and Pronger, as well, are likely to spend a significant amount of time in the box, another blow to Quebec's PK.

I think factoring absolutely everything into account, Visa's PK is going to be quite a lot better than Quebec's in this series, both in terms of the actual efficacy of the unit (Visa's best PK'ers are unlikely to take many penalties, for starters), as well as the fact that Visa is going to spend less time in the box.

 

[jarek]

And one thing I really, really want to stress, given the heat I got for it in the main ATD:

Potvin - Cleghorn has the exact same problems as my Cleghorn - Cameron pair had, and BB was one of the foremost critics of my pair. It shouldn't quite have the same defensive "problems" as my pair had (Potvin should be a lot better than Cameron, obviously, although I have read on these boards in the past that Potvin wasn't actually that good defensively), but the efficacy of the unit offensively will be diminished because there's only one puck.

 

[jarek]

And finally, matchups. Quite frankly, I built my team so that my top two lines could go head to head against just about any line. Hull - Nighbor and Trottier - Richard are just about as good of duos as there are in this draft, and they should carry the play offensively a good amount of the time. If Ivan sees fit to do so, my 4th line can match up against any of Quebec's scoring lines.

BB has obviously put together a nasty top-6 offensively, and his third line isn't exactly dragging anyone down, so this series should prove very high scoring. I think the biggest thing this series will come down to is special teams, where given what I outlined in my post above, should be a fairly significant edge for Visa, and should ultimately carry us to a series win.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I would peg Nighbor and Firsov around a 90 and Nedomansky around 80.

I remember 70s tried to work out an equivalence for the Soviets, pegging Makarov to Bossy and Mikhailov to Iginla. Firsov ended up ridiculously low, somewhere in the 70s I believe, but that was always passed off as a flaw with the formula, not with Firsov.

I still view him as an elite offense-producing LW in the ATD.

 

[jarek]

I remember 70s tried to work out an equivalence for the Soviets, pegging Makarov to Bossy and Mikhailov to Iginla. Firsov ended up ridiculously low, somewhere in the 70s I believe, but that was always passed off as a flaw with the formula, not with Firsov.

I still view him as an elite offense-producing LW in the ATD.

Nevermind that just looking at Firsov's numbers at face value underrates him because he was such a good playmaker and the Soviets didn't record second assists very often (or at all?).

Makarov equivalent to Bossy as a point producer seems very fair I believe.

 

[jarek]

So, Johnny, what do you think about the points I made?

 

[Dreakmur]

Yes, maybe I underestimated his group, but for the reasons I stated above, I'm just not convinced his advantage in this department actually matters all that much. I see hockey games won these days with skill, smarts and speed. Teams that win predominantly on the strength of brutality are from a bygone era.

Yeah, the physical intimidation is slowly leaving the game, but the vast majority of the game is still played in the trenches.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think that's a ridiculous statement.Quebec has a huge amount of physical and intimidating players.It is easily the most physical team I have ever assembled.The defensive squad includes Potvin, Cleghorn, Pronger and Pulford.I'd say this is a strongly physical blue line.

You do have a team that is going to intimidate physically, that's for sure. I've talked in the past about that being a double-edged sword though. Against the wrong team, or with a certain team composition, it could come back to haunt you. I see issues with both of those here....

First, your team make up:

With that physical play will come penalties - I don't think you could deny that. Here's where you can run into problems. Potvin, Cleghorn, Pronger, and Pulford are all on your PK unit. When they are in the box, Keith is a good option, but you really don't want Zubov anywhere near the ice in a defensive situation. Similarly, on forward, your 2nd unit PK holds both Messier and Lindsey, two guys who will definitely spend time in the box. Neither Taylor nor Crosby are guys I would want in PK situations here, and there's nobody else either. Let's say you run into a string of penalties.... how does your team handle that?

Second, your match-up:

Taking penalties against a team that can roll out Bobby Hull, Maurice Richard, Paul Coffey, and Ray Bourque is playing a very dangerous game!


I think you've got the better team overall, but this match-up isn't great for you. I think you've got issues on the PK, and you're going against a pretty darn scary PP.

I watch this play out just about every year with the London Knights of the OHL. They run out a small skilled line-up that other teams think they can intimidate. Other teams come in to try to push them around - London pops a few PP goals, and suddenly the other team is scared to take penalties, so they back off.

 

[jarek]

You do have a team that is going to intimidate physically, that's for sure. I've talked in the past about that being a double-edged sword though. Against the wrong team, or with a certain team composition, it could come back to haunt you. I see issues with both of those here....

First, your team make up:

With that physical play will come penalties - I don't think you could deny that. Here's where you can run into problems. Potvin, Cleghorn, Pronger, and Pulford are all on your PK unit. When they are in the box, Keith is a good option, but you really don't want Zubov anywhere near the ice in a defensive situation. Similarly, on forward, your 2nd unit PK holds both Messier and Lindsey, two guys who will definitely spend time in the box. Neither Taylor nor Crosby are guys I would want in PK situations here, and there's nobody else either. Let's say you run into a string of penalties.... how does your team handle that?

Second, your match-up:

Taking penalties against a team that can roll out Bobby Hull, Maurice Richard, Paul Coffey, and Ray Bourque is playing a very dangerous game!


I think you've got the better team overall, but this match-up isn't great for you. I think you've got issues on the PK, and you're going against a pretty darn scary PP.

I watch this play out just about every year with the London Knights of the OHL. They run out a small skilled line-up that other teams think they can intimidate. Other teams come in to try to push them around - London pops a few PP goals, and suddenly the other team is scared to take penalties, so they back off.

That's more or less how I see it as well. My team *might* get outplayed at ES, but we definitely hold a pretty good special teams advantage here, and I think that'll be the difference in this series.

To be honest, if a series like this played out in real life, the discretion of the officials would play a crucial part in this series. If Quebec is allowed to take liberties with my players physically and otherwise just run around doing whatever they want, then they will win the series most of the time, on average. Here's hoping to an impartial group of ATD referees.

 

[jarek]

Alright well if nobody has anything else to add I'll throw in my final thoughts:

Why Quebec can win:

- overall stronger top-9 at forward due to the discrepancies at 2nd line RW and 3rd line LW, though the overall offense at even strength is quite close

- better physical play, if they are allowed to run roughshod over my team, they stand a good chance of winning the series

- overall stronger PP due to the 2nd unit difference

Why Visa can win:

- better penalty kill, both in terms of composition and quality of players

- Quebec will take a ton of penalties, especially by important players who Quebec is counting on to kill penalties, which will force weaker PK players to help in that department.. this alone will boost up Visa's power play

- Quebec has questionable chemistry among their 1st defense pair.. both guys love to handle the puck, so at least one of the two will have their value diminish in terms of even strength offense

- it's very minor but I also believe Sawchuk is a better goalie than Brodeur.. as well as the fact that Brodeur saw most of his success playing behind a trapping team that played exceptional defense.. Quebec is not really built this way, nor is Toe Blake a coach that seems like he'd employ such a style with this particular team

 

[ResilientBeast]

Quebec Bulldogs prevail in 7

3 Stars
1) Mark Messier
2) Guy Lafleur
3) Dennis Potvin