Red Fisher Conference 2nd round - Montreal Canadiens vs Ottawa Senators

[TheDevilMadeMe]

MONTREAL CANADIENS

GMs: Jafar / Sturminator
Captain: Mikhailov
Assistant: Bourque
Assistant: Coulter

HEAD COACH

Tommy Gorman

ROSTER

#9 Busher Jackson - #7 Frank Boucher - #13 Boris Mikhailov
#91 Shane Doan - #27 Jeremy Roenick - #19 Helmut Balderis
#17 Joe Klukay - #14 Don Luce - #10 Tony Amonte
#8 Sergei Kapustin - #33 Troy Murray - #41 Mario Tremblay

#77 Raymond Bourque - #2 Art Coulter
#3 Gus Mortson - #5 Jimmy Thomson
#4 Bobby Rowe - #18 Mathieu Schneider

#1 Georges Vézina
#23 Al Rollins

#39 Jason Spezza, #26 Rick Ley, #12 Steve Thomas, #71 Patrik Sundstrom

PP1: Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov
Schneider - Bourque

PP2: Kapustin - Roenick - Balderis
Thomson - Mortson

PK1: Klukay - Luce
Bourque - Coulter

PK2: Murray - Boucher
Mortson - Thomson

PK3: Roenick - Mikhailov
Rowe

VS

Ottawa Senators

Managers: overpass and bluesfan94

Coach: Ken Hitchcock

Toe Blake (C) - Elmer Lach - Marian Gaborik
Dave Andreychuk - Bill Cowley - Marian Hossa
Brian Sutter - Phil Watson - Dave Taylor
Georges Mantha - Patrice Bergeron - Ken Wharram

Kevin Lowe -Al MacInnis (A)
Doug Wilson - Art Ross (A)
Robyn Regehr - Ron Stackhouse

Spares: Billy Burch, Neal Broten, Marty Burke, Marty McSorley

Patrick Roy
Paddy Moran​

Power play
Andreychuk - Cowley - Hossa - Wilson - MacInnis
Blake - Lach - Gaborik - Ross - Stackhouse

Penalty kill
Mantha - Bergeron - Lowe - MacInnis
Blake - Lach - Regehr - Stackhouse
Sutter - Watson - Wilson - Ross​

Click to read more...

 

[bluesfan94]

First thoughts:
We have the advantage in goal. Coaching/Leadership is about even. Forwards are close. Defense is close.

 

[Sturminator]

First thoughts are that Ottawa has an advantage in goal and at 2nd line center, and Montreal pretty much everywhere else.

Ken Hitchcock is a fine coach, and a good fit for Ottawa's system, but he is not Tommy Gorman, who is in the conversation for best coach of all-time as soon as we get past the top five. I imagine overpass would agree with me here. Leadership is also not about even. Ottawa's leadership is good, but Montreal's is excellent, with Ray Bourque wearing an A because we have Mikhailov, who is one of the greatest leaders of all-time. I don't see team leadership/coaching as much of an argument, to be honest.

Defense is not about even. Ottawa has stacked their 2nd unit, but if we simply go down the hierarchy of defensemen on each team, Montreal wins at every position, 1-5:

Bourque > MacInnis
Coulter > Wilson
Thomson > Ross
Mortson > Lowe
Rowe > Stackhouse

Regehr vs. Schneider is a tough comparison to make because of their extremely different roles. Again, I doubt overpass would actually disagree with the above, though maybe he thinks Kevin Lowe is as good as Gus Mortson, I dunno. There is nothing much close about the defenses here. Montreal has a meaningful advantage across the board.

We'll talk about forward in more depth in the coming days.

 

[Sturminator]

Change to announce to the forward lines. Sergei Kapustin is being promoted to the 2nd line, and the other RWs are both dropping down a line. This will strengthen the offense of both the 2nd and 3rd lines at RW, at the cost of a bit of defense. The units will now look like this:

Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov
Kapustin - Roenick - Balderis
Doan - Luce - Amonte
Klukay - Murray - Tremblay

Minutes chart for the forwards:

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Jackson | 14.5 | 4 | 0 | 18.5
Boucher | 14.5 | 4 | 2.5 | 21
Mikhailov | 14.5 | 4 | 1 | 19.5
Kapustin | 12.5 | 3 | 0 | 15.5
Roenick | 12.5 | 3 | 1 | 16.5
Balderis | 12.5 | 3 | 0 | 15.5
Doan | 12.5 | 0 | 0 | 12.5
Luce | 12.5 | 0 | 3.5 | 16
Amonte | 12.5 | 0 | 0 | 12.5
Klukay | 6.5 | 0 | 3.5 | 10
Murray | 6.5 | 0 | 2.5 | 9
Tremblay | 6.5 | 0 | 0 | 6.5
TOTAL | 138 | 21 | 14 | 173

As you can see, the bench is being shortened somewhat, and the nominal 3rd line is playing basically second line minutes at even strength. The rationale behind this is simply the fact that Montreal is nine deep in strong forwards at even strength, and against a team like Ottawa, the defensive value of a winger like Joe Klukay is reduced as there are no opposing wingers worth the trouble of trying to shut down. The lines as they will be deployed in this series bring (nearly) the full offensive strength of a deep Montreal forward corps to bear, without sacrificing grit on any unit. The 2nd line loses some of its defensive cohesion, but Ottawa's wingers aren't where the team's offensive strength lies, and Montreal remains strong defensively down the middle. With the forward lines arranged as such, I'm perfectly happy comparing 2nd, 3rd and 4th units straight across, while Montreal maintains its large advantage on the top line, which is especially acute given that Ottawa doesn't have a shutdown pairing of similar quality.

In case anyone is wondering about Jeremy Roenick's ability to hold up the defense for the 2nd line, I would direct you to his profile, which contains a good deal of praise for JR's two-way game at every point during his prime (Chicago, Phoenix and Philly). I particularly like this quote from Ken Hitchcock:

Roenick left Phoenix to sign with Philadelphia on July 2, 2001. He had 67 points in 2001-02, but Hitchcock brought his defensive system to the Flyers in 2002 and asked Roenick to re-invent himself.

The coach still marvels at how Roenick adapted to play his new role.

"Instead of playing on the half-wall on the power play he ended up on the front of the net a lot and was good," Hitchcock said. "He was a third-line center or third-line right winger and was very effective. A lot of times players can't adapt, but he was very effective."

JR will obviously need to be defensively responsible between those wingers, especially when the Cowley line is on the ice, but I'm confident that's he's up to the job. At any rate, Gorman will keep the Roenick line away from the Cowley line as much as possible, and try to match either the 1st, 3rd or 4th lines against Cowley whenever possible. Given Gorman's coaching advantage and the fact that Montreal has home ice in this series, this should not be difficult.

-----------------------------------------

Defensive minutes will remain unchanged.

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Bourque | 19 | 5 | 4 | 28
Coulter | 19 | 0 | 4 | 23
Thomson | 17 | 2 | 3 | 22
Mortson | 17 | 2 | 2 | 21
Rowe | 15 | 0 | 1 | 16
Schneider| 5 | 5 | 0 | 10
TOTAL | 92 | 14 | 14 | 120

 

[Sturminator]

Before I go on, I want to say congratulations to overpass and bluesfan for advancing out of a brutal 1st round matchup. I have a lot of respect for both of you two as GMs, and I'm looking forward to some lively debate in this series. Good luck.

 

[Sturminator]

Montreal's strategy in this series is simple: check Cowley and pummel the Ottawa stars. At even strength, Ottawa is not a particularly dangerous offensive team, with the exception of Cowley. Gorman will rotate his lines to match either Frank Boucher, Don Luce or Troy Murray against Cowley whenever possible. If Cowley isn't lighting it up at even strength, Ottawa will have to depend on its powerplay for a lot of scoring, but that powerplay is up against one of the elite penalty killing units in the draft in this series.

This Montreal team is aggressive physically - on both forward and defense - which will be of value against the soft and/or injury-prone Ottawa skill players, who just came out of a long series against a physical Chicago team. Coulter, Thomson, Mortson and Rowe are all tough hitters on the Montreal backline and Lach, Cowley and Gaborik can expect to get a good working-over in the Montreal zone. If the series becomes a battle of attrition, Ottawa will have a hard time holding up physically.

 

[bluesfan94]

Was Gorman known to match lines? I've only found one quote about it in your bio, and that seemed to be all at the beginning of the game. The other quotes mention that he'd change lines every minute or so, but didn't seem to mention him matching lines.

Regarding leadership/coaching. Coaching you have the advantage in terms of bench bosses, but we have more on ice headiness, if you will. Lowe and Wilson were GMs, Roy is mentioned to be a front runner for an NHL bench job, Sutter and Blake were both head coaches, Art Ross was an innovator, etc. And leadership may be yours in terms of high end, insofar as Mikhailov and Bourque are two fantastic leaders, but I think leadership depth is in our favor.

Defensively speaking I was more looking at pairing to pairing - your top pairing is better than ours, our second is better than yours, our thirds are about equal. Going down the hierarchy is great for you, but unfortunately that's not the way the game is actually played.

 

[Sturminator]

Was Gorman known to match lines? I've only found one quote about it in your bio, and that seemed to be all at the beginning of the game. The other quotes mention that he'd change lines every minute or so, but didn't seem to mention him matching lines.

The fact that quote about the linematching duel between Gorman and Patrick described the beginning of the game is neither here nor there. It is the single clearest description of linematching that we have uncovered so far from this era. Expecting more is simply setting an unrealistic standard for prewar "evidence" - in effect introducing a sort of de facto modern bias. If this is the position you wish to take, that is your right, but I don't find it particularly reasonable.

Regarding leadership/coaching. Coaching you have the advantage in terms of bench bosses, but we have more on ice headiness, if you will. Lowe and Wilson were GMs, Roy is mentioned to be a front runner for an NHL bench job, Sutter and Blake were both head coaches, Art Ross was an innovator, etc. And leadership may be yours in terms of high end, insofar as Mikhailov and Bourque are two fantastic leaders, but I think leadership depth is in our favor.

- this is the first time I've ever heard a player's work as a GM later in his life used as an argument in favor of his on ice performance. Frankly, I don't know what to make of it, so I'm going to ignore it.

- If we must play this game, Frank Boucher won a Cup in 1940 as a head coach, and developed a new and highly effective penalty-killing system during his time behind the bench. Boris Mikhailov has a long and successful career as a head coach behind him, including a world championship in 1993, Russia's first world title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Helmut Balderis was head coach of the Latvian national team for a few years, and Bobby Rowe coached in Portland. I don't personally think any of this is relevant as we've drafted them as players and not coaches, but Montreal has plenty of "on ice headiness", as you put it.

- as far as "leadership depth" goes (another novel argument, as far as I know) both Shane Doan and Bobby Rowe are longtime captains for their respective teams, and both would be deserving of a letter on a team with weaker leadership. Mortson, Thomson, Murray and Amonte have all been captain for some time during their respective careers. Again, this seems like a meaningless distraction.

Defensively speaking I was more looking at pairing to pairing - your top pairing is better than ours, our second is better than yours, our thirds are about equal. Going down the hierarchy is great for you, but unfortunately that's not the way the game is actually played.

Bourque - Coulter is far better than MacInnis - Lowe. The Wilson - Ross 2nd pairing is better than Thomson - Mortson by whatever the margin is between Ross and Mortson, as Wilson and Thomson are basically equals. I personally consider Ross a high end two-way #3 defenseman and Mortson a below average one, so I like the Ottawa 2nd pairing better, but in no way is the difference between the second pairings anywhere close to the gap between top pairings. Bobby Rowe is a good deal better than either of Ottawa's bottom pairing defensemen, and he's playing nearly 2nd pairing minutes, with Schneider sheltered at even strength. Montreal will get better performance from its bottom pairing (in their roles) pretty easily.

But you're right, it doesn't work to just compare the players. On the ice, it is worse for the Sens, who didn't invest in a real defensive defenseman until the middle of the draft. This leaves you in the position of trying to check Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov with Kevin Lowe, which isn't likely to end well.

 

[bluesfan94]

The fact that quote about the linematching duel between Gorman and Patrick described the beginning of the game is neither here nor there. It is the single clearest description of linematching that we have uncovered so far from this era. Expecting more is simply setting an unrealistic standard for prewar "evidence" - in effect introducing a sort of de facto modern bias. If this is the position you wish to take, that is your right, but I don't find it particularly reasonable.

I think that if you're going to claim something will happen, you ought to have some evidence to back it up. Choosing what line to put out at the beginning of the game is much different than being able to control matchups throughout a game. If you'd like to play a modern game, perhaps having a modern coach would help. Now, if you'd like to assume a coach would coach a certain way without having any evidence, that's fine, but I don't find it particularly reasonable.

- this is the first time I've ever heard a player's work as a GM later in his life used as an argument in favor of his on ice performance. Frankly, I don't know what to make of it, so I'm going to ignore it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that they clearly know the game well. The fact that they were successful front office guys helps prove this. If you disagree, fine, but it's hard to prove hockey IQ. I can try to find quotes for you if you'd like.

- as far as "leadership depth" goes (another novel argument, as far as I know) both Shane Doan and Bobby Rowe are longtime captains for their respective teams, and both would be deserving of a letter on a team with weaker leadership. Mortson, Thomson, Murray and Amonte have all been captain for some time during their respective careers. Again, this seems like a meaningless distraction.

I'm not sure how leadership depth is a novel argument. I think having numerous leaders in the locker room is only a good thing. Maybe you disagree, but to dismiss it as meaningless is simply a way of avoiding a critique. We essentially have someone who could be a captain on an ATD team on every line and pairing except perhaps the bottom ones.

Bourque - Coulter is far better than MacInnis - Lowe. The Wilson - Ross 2nd pairing is better than Thomson - Mortson by whatever the margin is between Ross and Mortson, as Wilson and Thomson are basically equals. I personally consider Ross a high end two-way #3 defenseman and Mortson a below average one, so I like the Ottawa 2nd pairing better, but in no way is the difference between the second pairings anywhere close to the gap between top pairings. Bobby Rowe is a good deal better than either of Ottawa's bottom pairing defensemen, and he's playing nearly 2nd pairing minutes, with Schneider sheltered at even strength. Montreal will get better performance from its bottom pairing (in their roles) pretty easily.

So you're saying Thomson is a #2, and a pretty good one at that? And Coulter is a #2? So you would rank your defensemen as a #1, #2, #2, #4 and then bottom pairing? I think you're overselling your players, but I could be wrong. Looking simply at where they're drafted, which, I know, isn't perfect (although you use the same metric in the next part), Bourque was 9, MacInnis 40, Coulter 152, Wilson 168, Thomson 184, Ross 213, Mortson 277, and Lowe 296. It's not like anyone's that far apart. Looking at rounds: Bourque 1st, MacInnis 2nd, Coulter 5th, Wilson 6th, Thomson 6th, Ross 7th, Mortson 9th, Lowe 10. Again, I understand this is imperfect and also that there are tiers. But it's not far and away like you're making it. Your defensemen are slightly better. But not so drastically that it's unreasonable for them to be close, especially with a defensive system like Hitchcock's.

To include the bottom pairing defensemen Stackhouse was 537, Rowe 585, Regehr 601, and Schneider 632. Or rounds: Stackhouse 17, Rowe 19, Regehr 19, Schneider 632

But you're right, it doesn't work to just compare the players. On the ice, it is worse for the Sens, who didn't invest in a real defensive defenseman until the middle of the draft. This leaves you in the position of trying to check Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov with Kevin Lowe, which isn't likely to end well.

Ah finally the talk of actual on ice play. Remarkably, Lowe will not be the only person checking that line. He has a partner in Al MacInnis, who is, by my money, underrated defensively here due to his style of play. He also has forwards playing in Ken Hitchcock's system, which has known to do okay defensively. And behind him stands the best goaltender in NHL history according to HFboards and one who is known for elevating his game in the playoffs. I also think that degrading Lowe by calling him a middle of the draft player is underselling him - I think we got a bit of a steal here.

Regarding Coulter, Mortson, and Thomson, while they are all solid defensively, they're also known to be relatively highly penalized players, which only helps our team, because if they're in the box, that both hurts your PK and helps our team. Vezina is good, but he's not a saint. Cowley is the best playmaker in this series, Andreychuk has the most power play goals ever, and our two defensemen on our first unit have two of the best point shots in the ATD.

 

[Sturminator]

I think that if you're going to claim something will happen, you ought to have some evidence to back it up. Choosing what line to put out at the beginning of the game is much different than being able to control matchups throughout a game.

This is a petty argument. If one actually reads the document, it is clear that Gorman was matching lines to control the matchups beyond the initial ten skaters. I don't really see what is confusing to you here, but you are clearly not reading the actual document for content. Though now, I suppose you'll claim he was only doing it for the first couple minutes of the match. I see how this game works.

So you're saying Thomson is a #2, and a pretty good one at that?

I doubt your co-GM would rate Wilson and Thomson far apart. He might even rate Thomson higher. overpass apparently had Thomson at #55 all-time before the HOH defensemen project. Yes, I think Thomson and Wilson are both below-average to low-end #2s, depending upon the specifics of how one ranks a bunch of players who are all fairly similar. I don't feel like splitting hairs and arguing about which of the two is better.

And Coulter is a #2?

Pretty obviously, yes.

Looking simply at where they're drafted, which, I know, isn't perfect (although you use the same metric in the next part), Bourque was 9, MacInnis 40, Coulter 152, Wilson 168, Thomson 184, Ross 213, Mortson 277, and Lowe 296. It's not like anyone's that far apart. Looking at rounds: Bourque 1st, MacInnis 2nd, Coulter 5th, Wilson 6th, Thomson 6th, Ross 7th, Mortson 9th, Lowe 10.

Your co-GM has ridiculed the idea of "ATD efficiency" within the last week. This is a wholly meaningless argument.

Cowley is the best playmaker in this series, Andreychuk has the most power play goals ever.

Do you honestly believe that Bill Cowley is a better playmaker than Frank Boucher?

Career stats don't impress me. Andreychuk is a strong net guy on an ATD powerplay, and that's nice, but he's a liability on your 2nd line. At even strength, he should be a 4th liner in the ATD; he is good neither offensively nor defensively on a scoringline at even strength.

 

[bluesfan94]

This is a petty argument. If one actually reads the document, it is clear that Gorman was matching lines to control the matchups beyond the initial ten skaters. I don't really see what is confusing to you here, but you are clearly not reading the actual document for content. Though now, I suppose you'll claim he was only doing it for the first couple minutes of the match. I see how this game works.

I'm just saying that one quote doesn't prove a trend or a strategy. I understand there might not be more than that, but I find it hard to take one game and apply it to a career. I have a one-game quote about Cowley that mentioned his backchecking. I'm not going to try to claim Cowley backchecks.

I doubt your co-GM would rate Wilson and Thomson far apart. He might even rate Thomson higher. overpass apparently had Thomson at #55 all-time before the HOH defensemen project. Yes, I think Thomson and Wilson are both below-average to low-end #2s, depending upon the specifics of how one ranks a bunch of players who are all fairly similar. I don't feel like splitting hairs and arguing about which of the two is better.

I disagree with him. Is that acceptable? Or do co-GMs have to agree completely. We talked about Thomson if I recall correctly and chose Wilson.

Your co-GM has ridiculed the idea of "ATD efficiency" within the last week. This is a wholly meaningless argument.

Like I mentioned in that post, I only used it because you used it to demean Kevin Lowe.

Do you honestly believe that Bill Cowley is a better playmaker than Frank Boucher?

Absolutely. At the time of his retirement, Cowley held the record for most assists in a career and I believe single season. He was known my contemporaries as the best playmaker the NHL had seen. I believe Lester Patrick said Boucher was the second best playmaker behind Cowley. Pelletier agreed.

Career stats don't impress me. Andreychuk is a strong net guy on an ATD powerplay, and that's nice, but he's a liability on your 2nd line. At even strength, he should be a 4th liner in the ATD; he is good neither offensively nor defensively on a scoringline at even strength.

Like I said, on the power play Andreychuk is one of the best net guys in the ATD. Three of your top 4 defensemen were penalized heavily. Advantage Ottawa

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Absolutely. At the time of his retirement, Cowley held the record for most assists in a career and I believe single season. He was known my contemporaries as the best playmaker the NHL had seen. I believe Lester Patrick said Boucher was the second best playmaker behind Cowley. Pelletier agreed.

Pelletier is a hockey blogger, no more or less credible than some of the longer term posters on this website. He never saw Cowley or Boucher. Pelletier also doesn't quite do what we do here - he seems more concerned with telling a good story to make hockey history interesting, rather than being accurate (and sometimes boring) in every detail. So I wouldn't use him as a source for something like this.

I went to Cowley's profile to find the Lester Patrick quote - thanks for giving a date and linking to the original article by the way. The article is from Boucher's comeback for the 1943-44 war year as a 41 year old who hadn't played in the NHL for 5 years. Patrick (Boucher's manager) was predicting that Boucher would still be the 2nd best playmaking behind Cowley. It's evidence that Cowley was considered the best playmaker in hockey in the early 40s (which does't really seem debatable), but I can't see it as any kind of valid comparison between prime Boucher and prime Cowley.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd like to see a more detailed comparison between Doug Wilson and Jimmy Thomson. I remember that one reason why Doug Wilson was added to the HOH Top defenseman project is because another modern defenseman was "due" and he seemed the best one left at the time.

 

[bluesfan94]

Pelletier is a hockey blogger, no more or less credible than some of the longer term posters on this website. He never saw Cowley or Boucher. Pelletier also doesn't quite do what we do here - he seems more concerned with telling a good story to make hockey history interesting, rather than being accurate (and sometimes boring) in every detail. So I wouldn't use him as a source for something like this.

I went to Cowley's profile to find the Lester Patrick quote - thanks for giving a date and linking to the original article by the way. The article is from Boucher's comeback for the 1943-44 war year as a 41 year old who hadn't played in the NHL for 5 years. Patrick (Boucher's manager) was predicting that Boucher would still be the 2nd best playmaking behind Cowley. It's evidence that Cowley was considered the best playmaker in hockey in the early 40s (which does't really seem debatable), but I can't see it as any kind of valid comparison between prime Boucher and prime Cowley.

I know it's from his return but I think it's indicative of the way Cowley was seen. And as it turned out, Patrick was completely wrong and Boucher was not much of a player whatsoever. Either way, Cowley was definitely the lead playmaker for basically his whole era. Which overlapped with Boucher. I would say Cowley was a better playmaker than Boucher, yes. It's close, but I think Cowley wins. Set career assists record. Sets single season assists record twice. Legends of Hockey says he was an early day Gretzky. Elmer Ferguson said he was the smoothest playmaker in hockey.

 

[Sturminator]

This is a silly use of our time.

Frank Boucher career assists finishes: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6 (not counting his time out west)

Bill Cowley career assists finishes: 1, 1, 1*, 2*, 3, 5*, 6, 7

*war years

Even if we completely ignore the fact that Frank Boucher competed in a much tougher era and the fact that Bill Cowley got fat on weak wartime competition after blowing out his knee and losing his mobility, Boucher is still the better playmaker, and it's not particularly close.

Can we please stop reinventing the wheel now? Career statistics are really not a useful form of argument here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is a silly use of our time.

Frank Boucher career assists finishes: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6 (not counting his time out west)

Bill Cowley career assists finishes: 1, 1, 1*, 2*, 3, 5*, 6, 7

*war years

Even if we completely ignore the fact that Frank Boucher competed in a much tougher era and the fact that Bill Cowley got fat on weak wartime competition after blowing out his knee and losing his mobility, Boucher is still the better playmaker, and it's not particularly close.

Can we please stop reinventing the wheel now? Career statistics are really not a useful form of argument here.

To play Devil's Advocate, is there an argument that Cowley peaked as high or higher than Boucher as a playmaker? Boucher's longevity is obviously a lot better.

 

[bluesfan94]

To play Devil's Advocate, is there an argument that Cowley peaked as high or higher than Boucher as a playmaker? Boucher's longevity is obviously a lot better.

To go along with this:

His 62 points in 1940-41 were 41% ahead of the number 2 mark, an NHL record that would not be bettered until Wayne Gretzky did so 40 years later.

 

[Sturminator]

To play Devil's Advocate, is there an argument that Cowley peaked as high or higher than Boucher as a playmaker?

Sure, there is. Cowley led the league in assists and scoring by a stupid margin in 1940-41, so if you focus only on that one season, it may be the best non-Gretzky assists finish ever. Boucher's best finish was with 36 assists when the next guy had 31, which was a big margin for the time, but not stupid big. Cowley's three season peak is probably similar to Boucher's, but after that, they're not too similar.

bluesfan - Frank Boucher's last peak season was in 1934-35, which was Cowley's rookie year. Their careers really don't overlap much, at all. Cowley certainly was considered the best playmaker of his generation, but that is meaningless in a comparison between he and Boucher, as they aren't of the same generation. And really, Boucher's generation was easily the greater of the two. Frank Boucher started playing professional hockey (for the Ottawa Senators, actually) when Bill Cowley was ten years old.

 

[Dreakmur]

Boucher is definitely a better playmaker than Cowley, but I think Cowley is a better all-around offensive threat.

 

[bluesfan94]

At worst, I'd call it a wash and then you get to the fact that you're comparing our 2nd line center to your 1st line center and calling it even.

 

[Dreakmur]

At worst, I'd call it a wash and then you get to the fact that you're comparing our 2nd line center to your 1st line center and calling it even.

They may be an offensive wash, but Boucher brings a heck of a lot more defensive game to the table.

 

[bluesfan94]

They may be an offensive wash, but Boucher brings a heck of a lot more defensive game to the table.

Oh I agree with that. Although I, like you, think Cowley is a bigger plus offensively. But Lach vs. Roenick is a much bigger gap imo.

 

[Sturminator]

Boucher is definitely a better playmaker than Cowley, but I think Cowley is a better all-around offensive threat.

Because of his goalscoring ability?!

I suppose it depends upon how one treats the war years. I mean, if one looks at Cowley's VsX results uncritically, he's better offensively than Howie Morenz, as well, though I'm not sure if this is a sensible conclusion to reach.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov
Kapustin - Roenick - Balderis
Doan - Luce - Amonte
Klukay - Murray - Tremblay

If you post this with the proper formatting, I'll add it to the OP. Cutting and pasting all those links is a PITA.

I like this new lineup, and I'm not sure why you didn't do it earlier. Much better than the plan you had up for a half hour last night with Amonte on the 2nd line.

 

[Sturminator]

Oh I agree with that. Although I, like you, think Cowley is a bigger plus offensively. But Lach vs. Roenick is a much bigger gap imo.

Heh...I guess it's a good thing Montreal's wings are easily superior. You could sail an oil tanker through the gap between Boris Mikhailov and Marian Gaborik.