Robson Division Semifinals: Montreal Canadiens vs Vancouver Millionaires

[Theokritos]

MONTREAL CANADIENS



GM: BenchBrawl

Captain: Derian Hatcher
Assistant: Bryan Trottier
Assistant: Shea Weber
Assistant: Doug Harvey

HEAD COACH

Al Arbour

ROSTER

Patrik Elias - Bryan Trottier (A) - Bernard Geoffrion
Paul Thompson - Mike Modano - Glenn Anderson
Jamie Benn - Frank Fredrickson - Tony Amonte
Dave Andreychuk - Gregg Sheppard - Jerry Toppazzini

Doug Harvey (A) - Shea Weber (A)
Derian Hatcher (C) - Georges Boucher
Jimmy Watson - Ted Green

Frank Brimsek
Carey Price

Spares: Joe Pavelski, Marian Gaborik, Brian Campbell, Bill Thoms

PP1: Andreychuk - Trottier - Fredrickson - Harvey - Geoffrion
PP2: Thompson - Modano - Elias - Weber - Boucher

PK1: Modano - Toppazzini - Hatcher - Harvey
PK2: Trottier - Sheppard - Boucher - Weber


Forward Minutes

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Trottier | 14 | 4 | 3 | 21
Modano| 13 | 3 | 4 | 20
Geoffrion | 14 | 5* | 0 | 19
Fredrickson | 13 | 4 | 0 | 17
Elias | 14 | 3 | 0 | 17
Thompson| 13 | 3 | 0 | 16
Anderson| 13 | 0 | 0 | 13
Benn | 13 | 0 | 0 | 13
Amonte | 13 | 0 | 0 | 13
Toppazzini | 6 | 0 | 4 | 10
Andreychuk | 6 | 4 | 0 | 10
Sheppard | 6 | 0 | 3 | 9
TOTAL | 138 | 26* | 14 | 178*

Defensemen Minutes

Player | ES | PP | PK | Total
Harvey | 20 | 5 | 5 | 30
Weber | 17 | 2 | 2 | 21
Boucher | 17 | 2 | 2 | 21
Hatcher | 15 | 0 | 5 | 20
Green | 15 | 0 | 0 | 15
Watson | 8 | 0 | 0 | 8
TOTAL | 92 | 9* | 14 | 115*

*Geoffrion plays the point on the PP
​

Click to read more...

 

[Theokritos]

Vancouver Millionaires

1915 Stanley Cup champions
Home rink: Denman Arena (1911)
Capacity: 10,500
GM: monster_bertuzzi

Head coach: 'Toe' Blake

Dickie Moore - Joe Sakic (C) - Dany Heatley
Alexander Yakushev - Eric Lindros - Phil Watson
Jiri Holik - Duke Keats - Ron Ellis
Simon Gagne - Bobby Holik - Ryan Kesler

Red Kelly - Jack Stewart (A)
Herb Gardiner - Ebbie Goodfellow (A)
Dave Burrows - Kevin Hatcher

Jiri Holocek
George Hainsworth

Reserves: Alex Pietrangelo D, Miroslav Satan RW, Alex Tanguay LW, Willie Mitchell D

pp1: Goodfellow - Kelly - Lindros - Sakic - Yakushev
pp2: K.Hatcher - Gardiner - Heatley - Keats - Moore
pk1: Stewart - Goodfellow - Kesler - J. Holik
pk2: Kelly - Gardiner - Sakic - Watson

Coaching Staff Notes:

- In the event we lose the Big E for a 10-game stretch, Keats moves up the depth chart with either Watson or Kesler moving to 3C.

- Gardiner-Stewart likely ''last minute'' protection pair.

-Want Miro Satan to see at least 30-40 games, Phil Watson a possible scratch candidate against certain opponents.

​

 

[BenchBrawl]

Well facing this team in the 1st round is just a testament of the system's stupidity.

That being said, I still think Montreal has an edge and is the superior team (slightly).

Why Montreal should win this series

Goaltending

- First of all, Montreal has a solid advantage in front of the net with Brimsek.I wouldn't be surprised if this was the deal breaker when it's all said and done.

Forwards

- I think Montreal has an edge on the 1st line, but it is minor.I have no preference between Sakic and Trottier, but I do prefer Geoffrion to Moore.Same with Elias and Heatley.As for chemistry, both lines are well built.

- The 2nd lines are a bit weird, Yakushev-Lindros is a strong 2nd line duo but Watson there looks a bit out of place.Montreal continues with their strong two-way center line with Modano, and Thompson is a strong 2nd line winger.Anderson will crash the net which will be hard to contain with Modano's speed.It should be noted that Montreal has one of the toughest and biggest blue line in the league, which diminishes Lindros' intimidation factor and impact.

- Both teams have a strong 3rd line, but Montreal's 3rd line chemistry is near perfect.Fredrickson continues Montreal's two-way center line concept and is an elite 3rd liner.Benn-Fredrickson brings good size and skills, while Fredrickson-Amonte brings a crap ton of speed.Benn finished the season strong, which makes his prime long enough for him to be a solid 3rd liner.Overall, this line makes Montreal's entire top 9 two-way.Keats is another huge center after Lindros, but the fact Montreal has a big and tough blue line (on every pairing!) again decreases this edge.Fredrickson is better than Keats, and I feel this gives Montreal the edge.

- I like Vancouver's 4th line; Holik continues Vancouver's concept of a big center line (except Sakic).But then again, the same argument concerning my defense applies.Basically, my defense is a nightmare match-up for Vancouver's center line concept.Montreal's 4th line will see minimal icetime at ES, and is more a bunch of special teams specialists.This is made possible by Arbour's style of rolling his first three lines at ES, and the possibility of doing it due to Montreal's strong two-way group.

Overall, I feel like Montreal's group is more "tight-knit".

Defense

- Excellent skilled and tough first pairings on both side.If I had to pick one I'd pick the one with Doug Harvey, but otherwise those are very solid first pairings.

- Vancouver's 2nd pairing is better mainly because Gardiner is better than Hatcher.OTOH, Montreal is not that far behind neither.Hatcher completes Boucher very well and help maintain Montreal's defense concept of having a very big and physical, rock-hard defense.Hatcher is also the captain and will play an important physical role (kind of like the "boss of all bosses" on the physical side, unless that goes to Green).Adding Hatcher to Montreal's top-3 was giving the team a whole that was more than the sum of it's parts.Anyway, Gardiner-Goodfellow is a great 2nd pairing, and definitely better than Montreal's.Vancouver also has a very strong Top-4 on the defense, and is the team's biggest strenght.Unfortunately, I don't think they eclipse Montreal's Top 4 enough to compensate for the disadvantages they have elsewhere in the lineup.

- 3rd pairings are solid, if unspectacular.To speak for Montreal, Ted Green once again adds to Montreal's concept of a physical defensive group.Green, Hatcher and Weber is a very intimidating group of defensemen, made worst by having Harvey and Boucher to complement them, which are quite physical in their own right.

Special Units

- Vancouver's first PP unit is quite strong, but it doesn't approach Montreal's.Upfront, Montreal has two guys capable of playing in front of the net if needed, namely Andreychuk and Fredrickson.Trottier is Trottier.But the real strenght of MTL's first PP unit is possessing the greatest PP pointmen pairing of all-time in Geoffrion-Harvey.Easy edge to Montreal.

- I think Montreal also gets the edge for the 2nd units based on their pointmen in Weber-Boucher.This is a ridiculous 2nd unit point pairing.

- Having Harvey-Hatcher on the first PK unit gives the edge to Montreal.

- I'd give the edge to Vancouver on the 2nd PK unit.

Coaching

- Both teams have solid coaches.While Blake is slightly superior to Arbour, I feel any minor edge he has is cancelled by the great synergy between Montreal's lineup and Arbour's coaching style.

Extra

I feel like Montreal is a well-oiled machine, moreso than Vancouver (though all due respect, Vancouver is also a well-oiled machine).I think Vancouver is one of the strongest team in the ATD.Ultimately, I think it will boil down to Montreal having the physical defensemen to handle Vancouver's big center line, Montreal having the better goalie by far, Montreal being an exhausting team to play against (due to their physical defense and two-way forward group), Montreal having an edge in special units and having Doug Harvey control the flow of the game for 30 minutes a night on top of it.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Seriously...we're facing each other this soon?

Coaching:

Easy but moderate advantage Vancouver. Blake may the best ever. Arbour is a top notch coach that is a really good fit for Montreal's personnel, however.

Forwards:

I will call the top lines even. Easy talent advantage in our favour with Sakic over Trottier. Ditto with Heatley and Elias, Heatley is the higher skillset. We're happy with our matchup of Moore on Boom boom as well, he will pester Bernie on the backcheck and be a big threat on the counter attack at the same time.

Vancouver has one of the toughest 2nd lines in the league. On the strength of Yakushev-Lindros alone, advantage us.

In a vacuum Montreal has the better third line. Vancouver's is better suited to playing a stifling checking style, however. We're not gonna run and gun against Benn, Fredrickson, and Amonte.

Defense:

This is where you'll run into trouble against us Reen. Doug Harvey is the best defenseman in this series, but we've got a stud ourselves - a guy that was his equal if not better in the early 50's. Is Shea Weber in Jack Stewart's company yet? I really doubt it.

Large advantage Vancouver on second pairings with the best 2nd pair in the league. Gardiner-Goodfellow is simply no fun for 2nd liners to play against.

Neither third pair should play a pivotal role in this series as both teams will ride their studs in the top 4 hard. Green adds to physicality theme on their blue line - Hatcher was a much needed right hand shot for the powerplay system for us, we also have Pieteranglo on deck ready to step in when someone goes down.

Goal:

Pretty obvious advantage for Montreal. Holocek is something of an unproven entity - but its in the same way Anatoli Firsov is an ''unproven'' entity. As I've mentioned, going domestically you have to put Holocek in the same area code as Vladislav Tretiak - but even then Brimsek is better than Tretiak. Adv. Montreal.

--

Just a quick comment about first unit PP's...what about our serious advantage among the guys up front with Yakushev/Lindros/Sakic? They will not be fun to play against a man down. Red Kelly kinda knows what he;s doing at the point, too..

Good luck in this series Reen and its pretty infuriating that one of us is gone after this. Lots of physicality on both sides. Talking about bloodbaths...this series could and should get ugly.

 

[Dreakmur]

Seriously...we're facing each other this soon?

1 vs 4. Makes sense to me....

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

1 vs 4. Makes sense to me....

I dunno, I find my team superior to both yours and 70's other than a massive mis-match between each teams respective starting goalie.

 

[Theokritos]

I dunno, I find my team superior to both yours and 70's

You don't say.

Without wanting to disclose any undue details from the voting: with the sole exception of one GM, everybody found their own team superior to all the other teams in the same division. I suspect it's always like that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You don't say.

Without wanting to disclose any undue details from the voting: with the sole exception of one GM, everybody found their own team superior to all the other teams in the same division. I suspect it's always like that.

Unless something changed, ever team is supposed to vote themselves #1 in the regular season, regardless of how they actually feel.

 

[Theokritos]

Unless something changed, ever team is supposed to vote themselves #1 in the regular season, regardless of how they actually feel.

Obviously it serves one's regular season record. But I think it's an impressingly fair and honest move to not rank your own team first when you don't feel you're actually better than anybody else.

BTW, if the GM in question would have ranked himself 1st it wouldn't have changed anything about the standings in that division.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Seriously...we're facing each other this soon?

Coaching:

Easy but moderate advantage Vancouver. Blake may the best ever. Arbour is a top notch coach that is a really good fit for Montreal's personnel, however.

I see no ''easy'' advantage for Vancouver there, especially considering the fit between Montreal's lineup and Arbour.

I will call the top lines even. Easy talent advantage in our favour with Sakic over Trottier.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I take it you meant Sakic is a better offensive player.This is true, but then Trottier is a much better all-around player.

Ditto with Heatley and Elias, Heatley is the higher skillset.

I find this statement to be pretty much meaningless.Elias has a lot going for him that Heatley doesn't; adaptative game, longevity, loyalty to team and good attitude, defensive skills, playmaking, playoff resume.Both are physical non-factors.So Heatley is a better goalscorer and that's pretty much it.

Vancouver has one of the toughest 2nd lines in the league. On the strength of Yakushev-Lindros alone, advantage us.

I disagree.The way you're stating it it's as if Yakushev-Lindros was astronomically superior than Thompson-Modano.I do prefer Yakushev-Lindros, but the gap isn't that big.Modano is a better defensive player, has better longevity, can play absurd minutes, is a model of consistency, has a better playoff resume and is somewhat of an ironman.I'd need convincing that Yakushev is actually superior than Thompson.Then we have Anderson vs Watson, and Anderson looks much better at first glance anyway.

This is where you'll run into trouble against us Reen. Doug Harvey is the best defenseman in this series, but we've got a stud ourselves - a guy that was his equal if not better in the early 50's. Is Shea Weber in Jack Stewart's company yet? I really doubt it.

In any pairing comparison where it's close, I always favor the pairing with the top defenseman, because it is him who controls the game.Regardless, I'm not even sure the gap between Weber and Stewart is as big as the gap between Harvey and Kelly.I like Kelly, but saying he was ''Harvey's equal or even better in the early 50's'' is painting the comparison very positively in favor of Kelly.Harvey was not yet in his pure prime.Kelly peaked younger.Once Harvey got going Kelly never managed to beat him.

I don't see why I'd ''run into trouble''.

Large advantage Vancouver on second pairings with the best 2nd pair in the league. Gardiner-Goodfellow is simply no fun for 2nd liners to play against.

It's true that Gardiner-Goodfellow is no fun to play against, but I doubt Hatcher-Boucher will be much fun neither.As I said in my first post, this is an advantage for Vancouver.Whether it is a ''large'' advantage is debatable.I don't see what makes Goodfellow better than Boucher.They look pretty much equal, and those are the top guys on their respective pairing, so whether the gap between Gardiner and Hatcher is enough to dim it a ''large'' advantage for the overall pairings is not clear to me.In any case, this is a compartmentalized comparison of pairing vs pairing or lines vs lines, but as I said repeatedly, I was building a whole bigger than the sum of it's parts and tried to build a team concept.Hatcher helped with that.

Good luck in this series Reen and its pretty infuriating that one of us is gone after this. Lots of physicality on both sides. Talking about bloodbaths...this series could and should get ugly

.

Good luck to you too man! I agree it's too bad that either of us will face a 1st round exit.Our team deserved a better fate.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Then we have Anderson vs Watson, and Anderson looks much better at first glance anyway.

Does he though? Anderson has a 7 year VSX of 72.1, and he had the benefit of playing on a generational team with generational talent. Sure Watson wasn't always a RW - but his XSX of 76.6 is clearly better and he wasn't on a freak of nature Gretzky-lead team.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Does he though? Anderson has a 7 year VSX of 72.1, and he had the benefit of playing on a generational team with generational talent. Sure Watson wasn't always a RW - but his XSX of 76.6 is clearly better and he wasn't on a freak of nature Gretzky-lead team.

I'm not sure about Watson but one thing to be kept in mind about Anderson's VsX is that during the Oilers big years (once Kurri and Coffey and Messier got going) he was a second liner.

He also coasted a bit in the regular season from what I remember.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Phil Watson's best years were spent centering Bryan Hextall.

Anderson was a "2nd liner," but his center was generally Messier. On the other hand, Anderson saw somewhat limited PP time, correct?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Phil Watson's best years were spent centering Bryan Hextall.

Anderson was a "2nd liner," but his center was generally Messier. On the other hand, Anderson saw somewhat limited PP time, correct?

I think Anderson saw a lot of PP time, but he didn't use it very well.Therefore, it's as if he didn't have it in the context of the discussion (meaning he is probably some sort of ES specialist despite the PP opportunities).

ESVsX study by seventieslord comparing the non-pp forwards in this ATD: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=129325611&postcount=882

Looking at this, all of Montreal's non-PP Top 9 forwards (so only Anderson, Benn and Amonte) do very well.Benn's number might not be up to date, but this is like a month old.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think Anderson saw a lot of PP time, but he didn't use it very well.

Based on?

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Anderson saw a lot of time on Gretzky's LW at EVS too, so I wouldn't call him a "2nd liner".

From HSP:

In 1981-82, Gretzky was in on 46 of Anderson's total points (43.8%), of which 31 were at EVS (38.3%), and 15 were on the PP (62.5%).

In 1985-86, Gretzky was in on 45 of Anderson's total points (44.1%), of which 25 were at EVS (36.8%), and 20 were on the PP (62.5%).

During those two years, Anderson was actually the FW with the 2nd most Gretzky aided points (Kurri was 1st obviously, Coffey was actually 2nd).

 

[BraveCanadian]

Anderson saw a lot of time on Gretzky's LW at EVS too, so I wouldn't call him a "2nd liner".

From HSP:

In 1981-82, Gretzky was in on 46 of Anderson's total points (43.8%), of which 31 were at EVS (38.3%), and 15 were on the PP (62.5%).

In 1985-86, Gretzky was in on 45 of Anderson's total points (44.1%), of which 25 were at EVS (36.8%), and 20 were on the PP (62.5%).

During those two years, Anderson was actually the FW with the 2nd most Gretzky aided points (Kurri was 1st obviously, Coffey was actually 2nd).

81-82 is before Kurri, Messier et al. really got going.

85-86 Messier also missed significant time..

And well.. Gretzky double shifted a lot. I'd be more interested in the typical years. I'm sure Gretzky during this period was in on everyone's production, but he should be in on Kurri's more than Anderson typically. Anyways when Kurri scores 130+ points playing with Gretzky primarily, and Anderson scores 100 and has the 2nd most.. that makes him the second liner by definition.

The second liner of a dynasty is still a second liner.

 

[jarek]

81-82 is before Kurri, Messier et al. really got going.

85-86 Messier also missed significant time..

And well.. Gretzky double shifted a lot. I'd be more interested in the typical years. I'm sure Gretzky during this period was in on everyone's production, but he should be in on Kurri's more than Anderson typically. Anyways when Kurri scores 130+ points playing with Gretzky primarily, and Anderson scores 100 and has the 2nd most.. that makes him the second liner by definition.

The second liner of a dynasty is still a second liner.

I'm struggling to determine why this matters.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

81-82 is before Kurri, Messier et al. really got going.

85-86 Messier also missed significant time..

And well.. Gretzky double shifted a lot. I'd be more interested in the typical years. I'm sure Gretzky during this period was in on everyone's production, but he should be in on Kurri's more than Anderson typically. Anyways when Kurri scores 130+ points playing with Gretzky primarily, and Anderson scores 100 and has the 2nd most.. that makes him the second liner by definition.

The second liner of a dynasty is still a second liner.

100 points which around 40% came playing on Gretzky and Kurri's LW. Wouldnt that mean more like a "1.5 liner"? Anderson wasnt playing strictly RW, so he wasnt exactly stuck behind Kurri.

I've only done those two years and 1979-80. Ive also done some of Gretzky's LA years. Maybe when Ive got time later, Ill do 84 and 85.

 

[BraveCanadian]

100 points which around 40% came playing on Gretzky and Kurri's LW. Wouldnt that mean more like a "1.5 liner"? Anderson wasnt playing strictly RW, so he wasnt exactly stuck behind Kurri.

I've only done those two years and 1979-80. Ive also done some of Gretzky's LA years. Maybe when Ive got time later, Ill do 84 and 85.

It is really not a big deal for this series but it might be interesting to know.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Good series MB.Your team deserved a much better fate, and for my money it was a contender.

 

[seventieslord]

Good series MB.Your team deserved a much better fate, and for my money it was a contender.

For my money too.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Good series MB.Your team deserved a much better fate, and for my money it was a contender.

Good luck moving forward Reen, you have a wicked strong team here.