Ray Scapinello Division Semi Finals - Chicago Cougars (1) vs Kenora Thistles (4)

[ImporterExporter]

Chicago Cougars (1)

Coach: Tommy Gorman

Syd Howe - Anze Kopitar (A) - Mike Bossy
Alex Tanguay - Ryan Getzlaf (A) - Larry Aurie
Patrick Sharp - Red Sullivan - John MacLean
Brenden Morrow - Brian Skrudland - Ryan Callahan

Lionel Conacher - King Clancy (C)
Rod Seiling - John Carlson
Joe Watson - Adrian Aucoin

Tom Barrasso
John Ross Roach

Spares: Viktor Shalimov (RW), Kevin Bieksa (D), Morgan Rielly (D)

PP1
Howe - Getzlaf - Bossy
Carlson - Clancy

PP2
Tanguay - Kopitar - MacLean
Aucoin - Sharp

PK1
Kopitar - Skrudland
Seiling - Conacher

PK2
Sullivan - Aurie
Watson - Clancy/Carlson

Extra PK F: Callahan, Sharp, Howe (also can play D)

This team plays a heavy forechecking system with strong forecheckers abundant throughout the lineup. Most of the time the 1st line will go power vs. power.

Estimated Ice Time

Forwards
Player	ES	PP	PK	Total
S. Howe	13	4		17
A. Kopitar	14	2	4	20
M. Bossy	14	5		19
A. Tanguay	12	3		15
R. Getzlaf	13	5		18
L. Aurie	13		3	16
P. Sharp	10	3		13
R. Sullivan	11		3	14
J. MacLean	10	2		12
B. Morrow	11			11
B. Skrudland	8		4	12
R. Callahan	9			9
TOTAL	138	24	14	176

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Defense
Player	ES	PP	PK	Total
L. Conacher	18		4	22
K. Clancy	18	4	2	24
R. Seiling	16		4	20
J. Carlson	16	4	1	21
J. Watson	12		3	15
A. Aucoin	12	3		15
TOTAL	92	11	14	117

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

VS

Kenora THISTLES (4)

1907 Stanley Cup Champions

Home Rink: Thistle Rink (1920), Kenora, Ontario
GM: papershoes
Coach:
Captain: Brian Sutter
Alternates: Doug Harvey, Guy Carbonneau

#12 Dickie Moore - #71 Evgeni Malkin - #7 Rod Gilbert
#11 Brian Sutter (C) - #19 Brad Richards - #7 Joe Mullen
Kelly Miller - #21 Guy Carbonneau (A) - Gary Dornhoefer
#17 Wendel Clark - Emile Francis - Vladimir Vikulov

Bill Hay
Nikolai Drozdetsky

#10 Tom Johnson - #2 Doug Harvey (A)
#17 Jean-Guy Talbot - #58 Kris Letang
Craig Ludwig - Jeff Brown

Gilles Marotte

#1 Cecil "Tiny" Thompson
Ryan Miller

Powerplay:
PP1: Moore - Malkin - Gilbert - D - Harvey
PP2: Francis - Richards - Mullen - Letang - Talbot

Penalty Kill:
PK1: F - Carbonneau - Harvey - Johnson
PK2: Moore - Richards - Talbot - Ludwig

The Kenora Thistles
"...an early amateur men's ice hockey team based in Kenora, Ontario, Canada and formed in 1885 as a senior team by a group of 'Lake of the Woods' lumbermen. The club is notable for winning the Stanley Cup as an amateur team in 1907. The town is the smallest in population to have ever won the Stanley Cup"​

Click to read more...

 

[ImporterExporter]

Feel free to chime in with any observations.


2 things I like about Chicago:

Top pairing
-Really nice duo. Clancy is an above average #1 here and Conacher (very strong #2) provides a nice partner for him.

Defensive ability of C's
-Getzlaf is the lowest rated here and he's at least a solid player in his own end.

1 thing I don't like:

Fit of the top 6 wingers with Gorman
-I got hammered on this a few years ago having Gretzky and Kessel on a Gorman led team. In no world are Bossy (best player on team) and Tanguay good fits here. Let's be consistent.


2 things I like about Kenora (sucks this team got abandoned, it was good up until that point)
-Also, I don't think Kenora has a coach...might have been an oversight when picks were being made up.

Top pairing:
-It's Doug Harvey. Yeah, he didn't play much with Tom Johnson at ES but they were long time teammates and did share the ice at times on special teams. It's an elite pairing both in terms of ability and fit.

Top 4 D:
-Really nice group overall. Plenty of defensive acumen, great transition ability, tons of big game experiences across the board. Physical enough. These guys and Thompson are key to Kenora's chances.

1 thing I don't like:

-Scoring depth is lacking considerably beyond top line.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I actually think Chicago is a great fit for a Tommy Gorman team. In a defensive forechecking scheme, the centers are key, and I think all of Chicago's centers can handle it. Bossy and Tanguay are really the only players on Chicago who aren't strong two-way players and they aren't even playing on the same line. I guess Tanguay could be a small issue, but Bossy did quite well playing as something of an offensive ringer for a fairly defensive minded team.

I mean did Gorman's teams play some weird scheme where the defensive play was driven by the wingers? I don't think they did, but I suppose I could be wrong.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I actually think Chicago is a great fit for a Tommy Gorman team. In a defensive forechecking scheme, the centers are key, and I think all of Chicago's centers can handle it. Bossy and Tanguay are really the only players on Chicago who aren't strong two-way players and they aren't even playing on the same line. I guess Tanguay could be a small issue, but Bossy did quite well playing as something of an offensive ringer for a fairly defensive minded team.

I mean did Gorman's teams play some weird scheme where the defensive play was driven by the wingers? I don't think they did, but I suppose I could be wrong.

Disagree somewhat.

To be frank, I don't think it matters in the end because Kenora was damaged enough by the abandonment (and subsequent late make up picks) but I don't see having 2 useless checkers in the top 6 makes much sense for Gorman. Maybe one, but not 2, IMO. Heck even Aurie was a tiny player. Good checker but extremely small. He's certainly prone to wearing down against bigger teams IMO. I'm a bit more flexible than most when it comes to coaching/fit, I just think the top 6 of Chicago is a bit light in the fore checking game for a Tommy Gorman team. Not a massive deal but something I noticed.

Now, Gorman's 2 years in Chicago would resemble more of what Chicago presents above, but that's only 2 years out of 8 coaching for Gorman, so 1/4 of his career resume.

Here is a look at his 6 other seasons coaching.


Gorman in NY:

26-27:

Top scorer is C by a wide margin.

Wingers seem to be more of the checking variety:

28-29:

Top 3 scorers are C's.

Wingers are checking types.

With Montreal Maroons

34-35

35-36

Again, C top scorer. Good down the middle defensively (which I praise Chicago for) but the wingers in the top 6 seem to be a bit off.

36:37:

C is stop scorer again.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Feel free to chime in with any observations.

1 thing I don't like:

Fit of the top 6 wingers with Gorman
-I got hammered on this a few years ago having Gretzky and Kessel on a Gorman led team. In no world are Bossy (best player on team) and Tanguay good fits here. Let's be consistent.

Disagree somewhat.

To be frank, I don't think it matters in the end because Kenora was damaged enough by the abandonment (and subsequent late make up picks) but I don't see having 2 useless checkers in the top 6 makes much sense for Gorman. Maybe one, but not 2, IMO. Heck even Aurie was a tiny player. Good checker but extremely small. He's certainly prone to wearing down against bigger teams IMO. I'm a bit more flexible than most when it comes to coaching/fit, I just think the top 6 of Chicago is a bit light in the fore checking game for a Tommy Gorman team. Not a massive deal but something I noticed.

I'm not going to have much time for these playoff threads as I'm very busy with work (and thankful to be), so I appreciate you guys getting things started. Here's some additional comments...

I have to disagree on your comment that the forwards are not a good fit for a Gorman coached team, and especially surprised at your issue with Mike Bossy. As TDMM said earlier, Bossy is in a very similar situation as he was in real life, with the main difference being that the playmaking to set Bossy up will be more by joint committee of Howe-Kopitar than heavily reliant on the center, Trottier.

I am not saying this is for sure the case, but it feels like you're still a bit sour from the past criticism of your above mentioned Gretzky-Gorman team and incorrectly trying to apply that same criticism here without considering that Gretzky and Bossy are two very different cases. For one, Gretzky never had success playing for a defensive minded team like Bossy did, in fact it was the opposite, his teams were the most offensive in the league. Two, Bossy is a very different type of player than Gretzky. Bossy does not need a lot of time with the puck on his stick and to be controlling the play to be his most effective in the same way the Gretzky does. Getting open to bury the pass from Howe or Kopitar after their forecheck has won the puck is a great role for him.

Also, and I'm sorry if this is harsh, but the bolded comment about Aurie seems lazy, like you just saw that he's small and then jumped to the conclusion that he will wear down against bigger teams, when there is no support for that at all. Aurie's bio is littered with quotes saying that he was extremely gritty and did not back down from much bigger players, and despite this, there is no evidence of him having any durability problems. The following are how many games Aurie missed in each of his 11 seasons:

0, 9, 1, 3, 0, 3, 0, 0, 4, 3, 1

He missed more than 3 games twice and more than 4 games once, and in 6 of 11 seasons he missed either 0 games or 1 game.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm not going to have much time for these playoff threads as I'm very busy with work (and thankful to be), so I appreciate you guys getting things started. Here's some additional comments...

I have to disagree on your comment that the forwards are not a good fit for a Gorman coached team, and especially surprised at your issue with Mike Bossy. As TDMM said earlier, Bossy is in a very similar situation as he was in real life, with the main difference being that the playmaking to set Bossy up will be more by joint committee of Howe-Kopitar than heavily reliant on the center, Trottier.

I am not saying this is for sure the case, but it feels like you're still a bit sour from the past criticism of your above mentioned Gretzky-Gorman team and incorrectly trying to apply that same criticism here without considering that Gretzky and Bossy are two very different cases. For one, Gretzky never had success playing for a defensive minded team like Bossy did, in fact it was the opposite, his teams were the most offensive in the league. Two, Bossy is a very different type of player than Gretzky. Bossy does not need a lot of time with the puck on his stick and to be controlling the play to be his most effective in the same way the Gretzky does. Getting open to bury the pass from Howe or Kopitar after their forecheck has won the puck is a great role for him.

Also, and I'm sorry if this is harsh, but the bolded comment about Aurie seems lazy, like you just saw that he's small and then jumped to the conclusion that he will wear down against bigger teams, when there is no support for that at all. Aurie's bio is littered with quotes saying that he was extremely gritty and did not back down from much bigger players, and despite this, there is no evidence of him having any durability problems. The following are how many games Aurie missed in each of his 11 seasons:

0, 9, 1, 3, 0, 3, 0, 0, 4, 3, 1

He missed more than 3 games twice and more than 4 games once, and in 6 of 11 seasons he missed either 0 games or 1 game.

I don't believe I'm incorrectly applying criticism at all. If you consider my critique connected to a few years ago, fine. I'm trying to get some discussion going on the numerous threads that had no action, while also working a job all week (likewise thankful), parenting by myself (3/4 days a week) an 8 year old, and running this entire thing, while GM'ing a pair of rosters, amid multiple massive research dives on the side.

The pictures above show that Gorman led teams generally had their best scorer down the middle, sans his 2 seasons with the Hawks. Chicago's scoring clearly doesn't come from the C. And they have, again, 2 wingers who provide very little checking in either direction and a 3rd player who WAS tiny and while he was very gritty and very durable (my apologies on suggesting otherwise, my fault entirely) his size does limit his physical impact as a checker. That's simple physics.

I don't have much of an issue with the OVERALL fit. As I said before I'm not as rigid as some. You have many good/responsible defensive wingers. Good to great defensive C's. I simply don't think the top 6 is as good a fit as you want to see from a Gorman led team. But overall it's not something that will cripple the Cougars.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I don't believe I'm incorrectly applying criticism at all. If you consider my critique connected to a few years ago, fine. I'm trying to get some discussion going on the numerous threads that had no action, while also working a job all week (likewise thankful), parenting by myself (3/4 days a week) an 8 year old, and running this entire thing, while GM'ing a pair of rosters, amid multiple massive research dives on the side.

The pictures above show that Gorman led teams generally had their best scorer down the middle, sans his 2 seasons with the Hawks. Chicago's scoring clearly doesn't come from the C. And they have, again, 2 wingers who provide very little checking in either direction and a 3rd player who WAS tiny and while he was very gritty and very durable (my apologies on suggesting otherwise, my fault entirely) his size does limit his physical impact as a checker. That's simple physics.

I don't have much of an issue with the OVERALL fit. As I said before I'm not as rigid as some. You have many good/responsible defensive wingers. Good to great defensive C's. I simply don't think the top 6 is as good a fit as you want to see from a Gorman led team. But overall it's not something that will cripple the Cougars.

You are speaking like Gorman's system was designed around the center. To my knowledge, it was not, it was a forechecking system. The primary scoring threat of a line being a wing does not significantly impact that type of system, which was evidenced by his ability to win a Stanley Cup in Chicago with wingers as the team's top scorers.


I still don't understand your criticism of Aurie, I think he's perfect for this team. Are you really of the opinion that no small player can be a good forechecker? There's a lot more to forechecking that just barreling over the opposing defenseman with size, it's about speed, positioning, leverage, board work, etc. Are Brad Marchand and Theo Fleury not good forecheckers? Did you read Aurie's linked bio in my roster? Some quotes...

"Aside from being one of the team’s offensive catalysts, Aurie was also often double-shifted as the team’s best defensive forward. He also had the tiresome duty of defusing their opponents’ top line, killed penalties routinely and was an intimidating physical presence in spite of his size - thus earning his other nickname: “Little Sampsonâ€"


"Larry Aurie was one of the smallest players to ever play the game Only 5-feet-6, 148 pounds, he established himself as one of Detroit's earliest hockey stars, combining a deft scoring touch with excellent speed and puck handling skills.

The other trait that was an Aurie trademark was his fiery competitiveness. He was nicknamed "Little Dempsey" after the heavyweight boxing champion Jack Dempsey. Like modern day Theoren Fleury, Aurie was a fiesty, scrappy right winger who played with full out heart and desire. That made him not only a favorite of the fans, but of his coach and his boss.


"Aurie would fight a tiger to win and was a damn good hockey player. He was very small, only 145 pounds, but very strong. He would stand in front of the net and take on players 50 to 60 pounds heavier and handled it well. Much like (Dino) Ciccarelli, only Larry could fight. He would drop his stick at the drop of a hat."


"Aurie was a scorer who (ragged) the puck to kill penalties (thus the nickname), a team leader and memebr of the Wings top line with Marty Barry and Herbie Lewis.

Although one of the smallest men ever to play, he was one of the toughest of the era as well."


"Fans here adored Aurie for the way in which he would willingly mix it with bigger foes. He was also terrific at ragging the puck and could keep the house at Olympia on its feet for minutes at a time in sheer delight with him."

 

[ImporterExporter]

You are speaking like Gorman's system was designed around the center. To my knowledge, it was not, it was a forechecking system. The primary scoring threat of a line being a wing does not significantly impact that type of system, which was evidenced by his ability to win a Stanley Cup in Chicago with wingers as the team's top scorers.


I still don't understand your criticism of Aurie, I think he's perfect for this team. Are you really of the opinion that no small player can be a good forechecker? There's a lot more to forechecking that just barreling over the opposing defenseman with size, it's about speed, positioning, leverage, board work, etc. Are Brad Marchand and Theo Fleury not good forecheckers? Did you read Aurie's linked bio in my roster? Some quotes...

"Aside from being one of the team’s offensive catalysts, Aurie was also often double-shifted as the team’s best defensive forward. He also had the tiresome duty of defusing their opponents’ top line, killed penalties routinely and was an intimidating physical presence in spite of his size - thus earning his other nickname: “Little Sampsonâ€"


"Larry Aurie was one of the smallest players to ever play the game Only 5-feet-6, 148 pounds, he established himself as one of Detroit's earliest hockey stars, combining a deft scoring touch with excellent speed and puck handling skills.

The other trait that was an Aurie trademark was his fiery competitiveness. He was nicknamed "Little Dempsey" after the heavyweight boxing champion Jack Dempsey. Like modern day Theoren Fleury, Aurie was a fiesty, scrappy right winger who played with full out heart and desire. That made him not only a favorite of the fans, but of his coach and his boss.


"Aurie would fight a tiger to win and was a damn good hockey player. He was very small, only 145 pounds, but very strong. He would stand in front of the net and take on players 50 to 60 pounds heavier and handled it well. Much like (Dino) Ciccarelli, only Larry could fight. He would drop his stick at the drop of a hat."


"Aurie was a scorer who (ragged) the puck to kill penalties (thus the nickname), a team leader and memebr of the Wings top line with Marty Barry and Herbie Lewis.

Although one of the smallest men ever to play, he was one of the toughest of the era as well."


"Fans here adored Aurie for the way in which he would willingly mix it with bigger foes. He was also terrific at ragging the puck and could keep the house at Olympia on its feet for minutes at a time in sheer delight with him."

Gorman's teams basically all had apt (to varying degress) checkers, top to bottom on the wings. His style of play was that of a very aggressive fore checking system, and you need wingers who can do that, consistently. I simply don't see enough of that in the top 6. The rest of the lineup? Absolutely.

Can Howe handle all of the fore checking for a top line on a Gorman team? Kopitar is not very physical despite his size and shouldn't be thought of highly in a fore checking role, in the ATD, IMO. Defensively? Absolutely, he's very good. And Bossy brings very little in the way of checking or physicality. Tanguay is another one who is in the Bossy camp.

I have re-read the Aurie bio. Theo Fleury is a good comparison. My point is that getting leaned on/checked by a man 5'6'' and under 150 lbs (was the smallest player in hockey) is not the same as getting leaned on/checked regularly by a 6 foot, 190 lbs player. There is no argument from me that Aurie is a relentless check in either direction (fit is good which I've always thought). I just don't see anything that makes him out to be a big physical force. He's not Baldy Northcott for example. He'll bring the same effort as a Northcott but the physical toll he puts on opposing players will be less IMO.

And I'll repeat, overall though, your team is very well constructed (one of my favorite top pairs in the draft). I wouldn't have expected anything less from a GM of your caliber.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Can Howe handle all of the fore checking for a top line on a Gorman team? Kopitar is not very physical despite his size and shouldn't be thought of highly in a fore checking role, in the ATD, IMO. Defensively? Absolutely, he's very good. And Bossy brings very little in the way of checking or physicality. Tanguay is another one who is in the Bossy camp.

I disagree about Kopitar, I think he's a great forechecker, and was the best forward on a multiple Cup-winning team that played a heavy forecheck. I'm about to run out the door, but a quick google search gave me this:

Bleacher Report Article: Stanley Cup Finals 2012: 6 Bold Predictions for Kings vs. Devils Game 1
"Anze Kopitar will wreak havoc against the New Jersey Devils tonight by using his 6'3" frame to dominate the forecheck and glide the puck through the offensive zone. "

TSN: Kopitar, Doughty contracts loom large for rebuilding Kings
"Their style of play – a militaristic buy-in to a dump- and-chase style of hockey with hyper-aggressive forechecking – threw opponents for a loop, and most of their core talent was on the right side of the aging curve."


I appreciate you contributing to the discussion here, especially with papershoes out

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I disagree about Kopitar, I think he's a great forechecker, and was the best forward on a multiple Cup-winning team that played a heavy forecheck. I'm about to run out the door, but a quick google search gave me this:

Bleacher Report Article: Stanley Cup Finals 2012: 6 Bold Predictions for Kings vs. Devils Game 1
"Anze Kopitar will wreak havoc against the New Jersey Devils tonight by using his 6'3" frame to dominate the forecheck and glide the puck through the offensive zone. "

TSN: Kopitar, Doughty contracts loom large for rebuilding Kings
"Their style of play – a militaristic buy-in to a dump- and-chase style of hockey with hyper-aggressive forechecking – threw opponents for a loop, and most of their core talent was on the right side of the aging curve."


I appreciate you contributing to the discussion here, especially with papershoes out

The 2012 LA Kings are the best example I can think of when it comes to a successful defensive-forecheck team in the last decade.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I disagree about Kopitar, I think he's a great forechecker, and was the best forward on a multiple Cup-winning team that played a heavy forecheck. I'm about to run out the door, but a quick google search gave me this:

Bleacher Report Article: Stanley Cup Finals 2012: 6 Bold Predictions for Kings vs. Devils Game 1
"Anze Kopitar will wreak havoc against the New Jersey Devils tonight by using his 6'3" frame to dominate the forecheck and glide the puck through the offensive zone. "

TSN: Kopitar, Doughty contracts loom large for rebuilding Kings
"Their style of play – a militaristic buy-in to a dump- and-chase style of hockey with hyper-aggressive forechecking – threw opponents for a loop, and most of their core talent was on the right side of the aging curve."


I appreciate you contributing to the discussion here, especially with papershoes out

My pleasure sir and thank you for your time and efforts this year!

Thank you for reminding me that it's imperative to read up on players we may need a refresher on (Aurie) and I do agree that Kopitar is a great fit for Gorman. He's just not overly physical for a being a 6'3'' guy. Doesn't impact the fit to system though.