To start off I feel as though we match up very well against the Capitals. He has a pure shut down line for his 3rd line but which line will he chose to play them against? Halifax have 3 scoring lines who can all put points up.
They're not just a pure shutdown line... the Harrises are two of the more offensively-oriented 3rd liners in the draft. this line will stop whichever line we choose to match it up aganst... but believe me, bud, my defensive forwards are the least of your concerns.
Also id like a little more selling on why Sargent can play both the 1st and 2nd unit PP, I think it clearly shows the lack of offense provided by his blue line when you have to double shift a D-man on the PP.
Glad you are focused on something so minor.
Let me ask (and answer) a few questions.
Am I asking Sargent to do something that hasn't been done many times in the past? No. Teams double shift some defensemen on the PP on a regular basis, and it's often players who are playing 1st/2nd pairing minutes, too.
Am I asking Sargent to do something that he hasn't personally done in the past? No. Sargent was on the ice for as many as 79% and 91% of his team's PP goals in his prime.
Is Sargent in danger of getting too tired by playing too difficult minutes? No. The point on the PP is the easiest position and situation on the ice to play for two straight minutes.
Is Sargent in danger of getting too tired by playing too many minutes? No. Sargent is on my third pairing, getting about 12 ES minutes per game against weaker competition, and is not on the penalty kill.
Even if he was, is he a player with a history of poor stamina? No. Sargent averaged over 25 minutes per game in his career and was top-7 in the NHL in icetime three times.
Does this highlight a lack of offensive ability on my blueline?No. not unless Halifax concedes that they suffer from the same problem!
Here are the instances of 50% or more versus the league's #2 scoring defenseman, with Orr and Coffey removed as obvious outliers:
* = WHA converted at 0.67 exchange rate
Roberts: 66, 62, 58, 55, 52*, 52*, 51
Sargent: 68, 60, 52
Gibbs: 64, 64, 53
Kampman: 54
Portland: N/A
Armstrong: N/A
and Halifax:
McKenny:
100, 98, 71, 63, 57, 56, 54 - can't be taken at face value, had lots of time at forward
Zidlicky: 98, 69, 66, 64, 62
Murdoch: 56
Hamhuis: 54
Giles: N/A
Matvichuk: N/A
three peak seasons by McKenny and Zidlicky definitely stand out here, but other than that, these two defense corps are practically equal in terms of demonstrated offensive capacity. I've just choosen to deploy mine differently, that's all.
Keep in mind that McKenny spent a lot of time at forward; it it was possible to remove points scored as a RW on the PP, these percentages would look a lot different. And the only two offensive threats on the Halifax blueline are notorious for being defensive liabilities, Zidlicky a physical one as well. There are no such liabilities in Regina's lineup.
Is Grant warwick suppose to be the physical presence on that 2nd line? Stumpel and Richardson are both very soft players, 5'6 155lb Warwick as your only source of toughness paired with two very soft players will be a problem.
so, the first thing I noticed is that you demonstrated you don't know a thing about Jozef Golonka. Secondly, I noticed you called a player "very soft" despite not knowing really anything about him. Please explain.
Edit: Wow I just realized that 1st line may be softer then the 2nd.....Who is the puck winner/physical presence on that line? In your bio for Gingras you state "Dan Bain was getting all the goals but Gingras appears to have been his playmaker and maybe the tough guy of the line, too. In 27 MNWHA games, Bain had 65 goals and just 17 assists and 3 PIM."
But have no actual evidence supporting this claim. This to me is the softest top 6 in the MLD and will get punished especially considering we are in the 3rd round of playoffs.
actually, there is plenty of evidence for a player who is so old. It says he had "herculean strength" and was "fiery" - this is also supported by his 52 PIMs in 37 games and a few in-game quotes that don't say much on their own, but add up to something.
but, I really don't care what you think of my forwards. It doesn't matter
while we are on the topic, what makes you think that Tom Hooper alone, whose resume as a puckwinner is only marginally better, carries the board work for a line with two softer players, and that Nick Libett, a good defensive forward will do the same for the second line? Sounds like you're making a couple of logical leaps while pretending they can't go the other way. For example, there is plenty more evidence that Golonka is a fiery, competitive player who will win puck battles through sheer will, than there is Hooper will win them. And don't forget "gritty, two-way" Gracie, clearly that is a puckwinner's recipe there. On line 2, there is plenty more information to support the combative Warwick potentially winning battles for the puck than there is for Libett, a sound defensive forward. See what I did there?
We're considering putting Witt in the lineup, but aren't even convinced the oppositions forwards strong enough to warrant the change yet. I really don't think they are, but we will see what seventies has to say. As far as guys already in the lineup who can clearly take advantage:
-Giles was known as a very good hitter, mainly for hip-checks.
-Matvichuk plays a rugged style as well, and should have no problem being effective along the boards.
-Hamhuis has always been good at using the body very effectively as well. Not necessarily the roughest, but he will certainly be able to take advantage of mismatches on the boards.
-Murdoch is a heady defensive defenseman with good hockey sense, so I can see hime being able to exploit softer forwards as well.
That said, if his scoring line forwards are as soft as they appear to be at first glance, it benefits every single one of our defensemen, especially our puck movers McKenney and Zidlicky, as they will take minimal punishment moving the puck up ice. It goes both ways, but the advantage of a softer top six clearly goes to the team defending against it, no matter which way you slice it.
All that said, we are also toying with the idea of putting Sundstrom in the lineup for Hunter to have a fourth line geared more towards dealing with a skilled, softish, offensive attack. Thoughts on this?
Really, please put Witt in the lineup. I'd love to have a career #5-6 NHL D-man playing a regular shift for my opponents, I really would!
You are making a bit of a leap on Murdoch there, don't you think? A "heady defensive defenseman" will exploit my forwards now? Not really. Because if those kinds of leaps are allowed then the fiery leader Golonka, and the gritty, two-way Gracie will be beasts along the boards. Not to mention Warwick the fire hydrant with a temper. Surely you agree?
----------------------------------
anyway, good series guys. This would have been the time to take advantage of an absentee opponent if there ever was one. I'm so glad we didn't have to quibble about Erixon/Libett and about the merits of a defensive 3rd line versus an offensive one.
It really doesn't matter what subtle differences exist in our forwards, or in net, or behind the bench, or in the
offensive abilities of our forwards. Because whatever those are, they are completely insignificant in the face of the most important difference between the two teams - the
overall abilities of our defense corps. Just to illustrate, here is a list of the most impressive seasons put up by blueliners playing in the top-6 on this series. It starts with all-star/norris finishes (none duplicated of course), then moves onto seasons where the player was selected to, or played in an ASG (obviously only if not recognized in the above ways), then seasons in which they were #1 in icetime on a team .500 or better. (I don't have icetime for pre-1967, and of course, I can't make it up, so since you have six post-expansion d-men and I have three, you are at a major advantage in this last category)
black = Regina, red = Halifax. win% adjusted for OTL.
5th
5th
5th
7th
7th
8th
8th
8th
9th
9th
9th
11th
11th *Murdoch
13th
13th
ASG
ASG *McKenny
#1 .598 *Hamhuis
#1 .544
#1 .535
#1 .531 *Murdoch
#1 .520
#1 .519
#1 .513 *McKenny
#1 .500
#1 .500 *Hamhuis
#1 .500 *Murdoch
our defensemen adjust to 5-11, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-5. Halifax's adjust to 5-9, 5-11, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3. A difference of more than one inch per player. Of course, Halifax was quick to point out that even though Warwick is tough as nails, he's small. They didn't point out that their crushing hitter who will strike fear into our forwards,
Curt Giles, is 5'8".
please, gentlemen. Between your top-6 defensemen, there are just six times they did something even as impressive as being the #1 defenseman on an above-average team. Only once was one of them ever recognized in year-end voting. On the other hand, every Regina defenseman earned postseason recognition at least once, and Armstrong did four times. This is like a bunch of ATD #5-6 guys against an average (at best) MLD defensive corps. It's safe to say that it's not even close... which is also a fair description of the likely proximity of Halifax's forwards and Billy Nicholson.
Don't feel bad though, your D isn't the only one in this MLD not close to mine. All of them suffer from the same ailment, except for my next opponents.
Doesn't matter how soft you think my forwards are or how much of an advantage an offense-only player on your 3rd line gives you... your defense isn't close to ours. Not by any stretch. That's the key. If you want to get to the MLD finals, draft some bloody defensemen next time.
of course why would it matter? Clearly I have exposed glaring weaknesses in your team, but again "they don't matter"
What a small group. 
