Advantages for Minnesota:
-Coaching: Two good coaches who should have chemistry can out coach a very good coach, and maybe be an equal to a great coach. But against an elite coach? No. Arbour is a clear advantage.
I agree that Arbour is an amazing coach. I've been a fan of his a long time and I had him last year in the ATD.
There is no coach clearly better than him imo.
That being said, I think that:
1) Quinn backed up by Muckler closes up the gap substantially because I think Quinn's biggest weakness is systems and strategy, an area Muckler excels at.
2) I believe that the fact that our team is built top to bottom to do what it does closes it even more.
Arbour is still better in my opinion, especially in an all time sense, but I don't think it will be a deciding factor in this case.
-Defence: After Paul Coffey Minnesota has the better defence top to bottom. Bigger, more skilled, more polished.
Not sure about this one. We have very good size and skill on the defense.
Guys like Griffis and Hajt are huge for their era, meanwhile Coffey/Coulter/Tsygankov are all average to above average as well, I'm sure. Baker may be a little smallish for his time (not sure?) but has great speed to help make up for it.
Most importantly our defense corp was selected specifically to play our game.
-Team defence: Guelph's only really strong defensive line is their low usage fourth line. While Minnesota has a strong 3rd line that can be used a lot. While also having balance throughout the line-up with Zetterberg, Lemaire, Stewart and Holik.
This is by design on my part, we're going to just keep attacking in waves. More on this later in the post.
Each of our lines I would term at the worst responsible and at best quite good defensively. This was to make sure someone would be covering for Coffey and to a lesser degree Griffis & Baker, when they get adventurous, because we want to push the odds in our favour when they do.
As for having balance sprinkled through the lineup, I see your Zetterberg, Lemaire, Stewart and Holik and raise you a Sakic, Barry, Lehtinen, Madden, Gould etc.
-Toughness: Minnesota is bigger and more physical throughout the line-up. Guelph has a few guys like Bucyk, Bridgeman and Coulter that will have to shoulder a heavy load. While Minnesota has size, strength and the will to use it throughout the line-up.
We have at least one solid physical presence or noted board/corner man on every forward line, and if we can take care of the business of playing hockey without taking penalties, all the better for us.
Our preference will just be to keep skating and let you take penalties trying to keep up. You can't hit what you can't catch, Bridgman will dust anyone who gets too far out of line, and if the issue gets pressed we'll insert Probert too.
Disadvantages for Minnesota:
-Offence: The scoring lines are close. Richard is clearly better than Hull as the lead sniper. But Bucyk is much better than Zetterberg.
This is where I have to disagree. The scoring lines are not close.
1st lines
Richard vs. Hull
You're correct that Richard is clearly better than Hull, but Hull at least keeps him within sight as a goal scorer (even if he doesn't do as well overall outside of his peak).
The point I'm getting at is that Hull is much closer to Richard than Zetterberg is to Bucyk in this setting.
Statsny vs. Sakic
Sakic is better than Stastny both ways. Offensively for five seasons they are close (Sakic still ahead) and then Sakic just starts to pick up steam and pulls away.
Player|10G|10A|10Pts|vs2
Stastny|0|7| 6|100,95,94,87,81,74,74,71,57,57,50,46,27,13,3
Sakic|5|9|10|100,100,95,90,88,88,86,83,81,79,77,76,71,71,69,68,56,41,38,11
Zetterberg vs. Bucyk
Bucyk is miles, no, light years better than Zetterberg in an ATD setting. Zetterberg is a fine player, but even if you give solid credit for his defensive play over his much shorter career, I don't know how he can begin to make it up.
Offensively, Bucyk's 10th season is as good as Zetterbergs 5th. Bucyk's 18th best offensive season is as good as Zetterbergs 7th.
Then add in Bucyk's hitting and corner work.
Player|10G|10A|10Pts|vs2
Zetterberg|1|1|2|87,81,71,69,66,64,60,49,42
Bucyk |5|5|6|89,83,82,81,78,73,71,70,70,66,66,65,65,64,62,62,61,60,43,35,25,15,11
The second lines are both good, not great.
Hey, my second line is great.
2nd line
Naslund vs. Adams
Naslund has 4 Top 10 in goals, 3 in assists and 3 in points. All three of his top finishes for points were top 5.
Adams has 4 top 10 in goals, 2 in assists and 4 in points in just the NHL part of his career. 2 of them top 5.
These two are tough to compare being so distant.. but adding in Adams physical play and discounting his offense some for being in his lesser used position.. it could go either way for me at first glance.
Maybe you can weigh in more on this one...
Lemaire vs. Barry
Lemaire has 1 top 10 in goals, 1 top 10 in assists and 3 in points.
Top 10 seasons: 91,79,72,69,61,61,59,55,50,44
Barry has 7 top 10 in goals, 3 top 10 in assists and 6 in points.
Top 10 seasons: 100,98,93,85,85,84,76,65,58,53
Lemaire is also noted as a very good two way player and maybe he makes up some ground there, but Barry is known as a good too way player too.
Put another way, Barry is as good offensively on my second line as Stastny is on your first:
Barry's 10 best seasons vs2:
100,98,93,85,85,84,76,65,58,53
Stastny's 10 best seasons vs2:
100,95,94,87,81,74,74,71,57,57
Guerin vs. Mosienko
Guerin: 3 top 10 in goals.
Top 10 seasons vs2: 79,73,72,60,49,49,48,44,43,43
Mosienko: 5 top 10 in goals, 5 top 10 in assists, 5 top 10 in points.
Top 10 seasons vs2: 92,91,77,74,73,67,64,55,52,51
Guerin adds physicality and size, Moseinko adds elite speed. Take those for what you will.
3rd lines
This is where our teams completely differ so it is hard to compare.
You have a much more defensive shutdown type line whereas ours is a 3rd responsible scoring line.
I will just put out there that the nice thing for us in this series is that our 3rd line center and right winger is as good as your 2nd line ones.. so even if you are using your shutdown line on one of our top two lines, our remaining two scoring lines still have more punch than what you have.
Richards: 91,83,78,74,71,69,68,61,58,53,44
Lemaire: 91,79,72,69,61,61,59,55,50,44,42,40
(In this case, I think Lemaire's two way play may push him back over the top overall though)
Guerin: 79,73,72,60,49,49,48,44,43,43,42,41
Gaborik: 79,78,78,74,63,54,50,48,46,31,21
But with Paul Coffey backing it all up, a likely saw-off becomes advantage Guelph. Gadsby, Clapper and Duncan just can't do what Coffey does.
Offense is already looking like a very strong advantage for us, even before adding in another weapon like Coffey.
Waves man, waves!
Saw-offs:
-Leadership: Both teams are loaded with high character players.
Agree. I don't think leadership will be a determining factor for either of us.
-Special Teams: Coffey is not an elite PP QB. So the advantage he offers 5 on 5 is not there 5 on 4. So the two teams are very close to equal when it comes to powerplay offence.
Coffey certainly is an elite PP QB.
Furthermore, our PP units may be fairly close, but we aren't going to be in the box often and should enjoy a lot more opportunities.
Both teams have fantastic penalty killing forwards. Guelph's 1st unit PK has a great defence as well, one of the best, but Hatcher-Clapper is also one of the best. That said, I would give Minnesota an advantage on the 2nd PK unit. The question is whether or not that is significant.
Agreed - besides the fact that your PKers will get a lot more work than mine - I don't think the quality of them differs enough to make them a distinct advantage or disadvantage for either of us at first glance.
I'm not sure:
-Goaltending: On the one hand, Lehman is the more skilled goalie. On the other hand, Fuhr locks it up when it counts. Normally I find the whole money goalie vs good goalie thing overblown. (Like how Broda got rated over Brimsek.) But this is actually a great case study in it. It really depends on how much you value Lehman's ability as a goalie. How much one punishes Fuhr for his mid-career floundering. How much one punishes Lehman for his below expectation play in a couple series. How much credit one gives Fuhr for winning in Edmonton. These are pretty big variables and one can walk away saying Lehman is clearly better, Fuhr is clearly better, or they are equal. And all would be perfectly justifiable. (
Naturally, I think Lehman is clearly better.
)
Yeah, well I think that Fuhr is better.
I don't know enough about Lehman yet to make a strong determination either way. I do know I like Fuhr on our team with our style of play -- he's used to it!
(I hope I have all the numbers in here correct, its late!)
I woke up about 10 minutes ago , I need a coffee.
