Yes and yes. This Kilkenny team has 4 centers that are great defencively, every forward (even Hull to some point under Hitchcock) are dedicated backchecker, there will be no easy matchups for your lines despite your offencive depth.
As for your second question, your transition game will be slowed down by trap, Paul Coffey couldn't skate through NJ Devils in 1995, and he didn't lost a bit of his offencive or skating ability by that time, and he is your most talanted rusher (I actually question Sologubov's rushing ability at this level, he did it against not really great Soviet competition in the 50ies, but this doesn't mean much). Your team is not suited to play dump and chase - the most effective tactic against the trap, so i think skating through the middle and gainig our defencive zone won't be as easy as you think.
a number of great players had difficulty against the '95 new jersey trap - including a 33 year old paul coffey. however, the '95 red wings were not as great of a collection of players as these thistles.
there is a weak link your trap - brett hull. though he may have learned a little bit about backchecking from hitch, that was three years out a of a 19 year career. how much will the free-spirit hull buy into the kilkenny trap?
Dionne will have the pressure carring his line offensively, and he won't have easy matchups, so he will be in the same situation as he was with LA. As for Hall, I thought durnig the draft we came to conclusion that Chicago's struggles were more due to the lack of depth, and Kilkenny has tonns of it, and playing for defencive team will make Hall's job much easier. The fact that he won Conn Smythe in losing case (they were actually swept by Canadiens) say something about his ability to play in playoffs, as far as I know Dionne never showed that.
i'm certainly not arguing hall's abilities. however, as i mentioned before, if we can forgive hall's misgivings because of the depth you've surrounded him with - eliminating his main weakness in chicago, then we can definitely do the same with dionne. on kenora, dionne has more depth surrounding him. he's number 2 behind the greatest player of all-time - so, it will be gretzky, not dionne that will attract the most attention. he has a much stronger corp of defensemen that can get him the puck. and, he has two great linemates in hull and mullen. finally, he's surrounded by numerous player's with multiple championships - players who knew what it takes to win the big game.
Kuzkin and Sologubov used to play with more defencive partner, that why I'm not sure how well they'll do together - if Kuzkin will have to cover for Sologubov, how effective can he play, and I'm not sold on Sologubov's rushing abilities at this level.
i think you are underestimating sologubov's talent a great deal. here's something i posted when i selected him...
in my opinion, he's very much a legitimate 7th rounder in the atd. and, judging by his average draft position, so do a number of other atd gm's (including your co-gm).
he was an early russian superstar and, the first russian blueline superstar. russian hockey historians argue for his merit as one of the greatest soviet blueliners ever (alongside fetisov).
while playing for cska moscow, he won 9 soviet championships (1950, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964).
he's a member of the "fetisov club" - for the all-time top 40 scoring defense players in the soviet and russian elite leagues - ranked 2nd behind only slava fetisov himself.
he's ranked 4th, and the namesake, of the "sologubov club" - for the soviet and post-soviet blueliners that scored 100+ goals in the soviet and russian elite league championships, play-offs, international games of the national team, european cups, nhl and in the championships of the top hockey countries.
add to that the following resume:
- Russian Hockey Hall of Fame (zms, 1956)
- WWII veteran
- USSR Elite Hockey League: 128 goals in 350 games
- WC Gold 1956 and 1963
- WC Silver 1955, 1957, 1958, 1959
- WC Bronze 1960, 1961
- Olympics Gold 1956 - best defender of the tournament
- Olympics Bronze 1960 - best defender of the tournament (at age 35 - 9 pts in 5 games)
- IIHF Best Defensemen Award 1956, 1957, 1960
a prominent nhl player (undrafted at this stage) indicated he was talented enough to play on any nhl team in the original six era. he garnered comparisons to bobby orr and doug harvey.
he might have built an even better resume had the national team been formed prior to him turning 25.
i'll take him on my team any day.
and, if the argument that he couldn't win against the whitby dunlops carries such great weight, i guess we should discount every player on the 1980 soviet team after losing to a bunch of amateur americans in lake placid (only a couple of which will be drafted in the atd).
As for Ramsey, he is good defenceman, the question is - is he good enough to play 20+ minutes against Trottier, Hull, Francis and Hextall with his partner often being out of position? Turner was depth defenceman for Habs, who didn't had much resposobilities. He isn't used to play with somebody like Lil-Strimma, how good he can cover for him.
in my opinion, there's no much separating kevin lowe and mike ramsey - aside from championship rings. don't get me wrong, i'm a huge fan of kevin lowe but, both are big, strong, defensive defencemen. both are great positionally, can make the big hit, block shots, and cover for a risk-taker like coffey. ramsey logged monster minutes playing in buffalo. why can't he do the same with kenora? so, if we are questioning ramsey's ability as a top-pairing d-man, we need to toss kevin lowe's name in there as well.
During Thompson first (and second) season forward pass wasn't allowed, so you have to take his stats with a grain of salt, and with forward pass he won 3 games (also a playoff series) just once. I'm not arguing that he'll lose you a game, but i'm not sure he'll be able to steal a game, or how good will he play with such offencive defence in front of him
good point! i didn't know about that.
Yeah, and it worth nothing that he had arguably the most talanted team, with the best forward of alltime? And his winning percentage isn't saying much, the NHL of 90ies - 00ies is much more competetive as it was in the 80ies. i think that Hitchcock has more to do with his team's succes that Sather. I stay by my point - neither coach will be the reason for his team's failure.
i stay by my point - sather has the advantage, especially considering the team he has in kenora. you're right, his winning percentage is due to having an extremely talented team with the greatest player ever. what does he have in kenora? an extremely talented offensive team with wayne gretzky. really no difference there. if he was so effective with edmonton, he'll be just as effective coaching kenora. i'm not going to argue that hitchcock hasn't been a key cog in his teams success - hitch is a great tactician. however, sather was instrumental to the success of the oilers - he let them play the wide open game that they were properly suited to. he wasn't merely a "push-button" coach.
oilers legacy said:
Sather knew he had to surround his superstar with players who suited his creative, offensive-oriented style. Sather built the Oilers of the ‘80s around speed, finesse and a high-tempo passing game that saw the defencemen jump into the attack. Sather would also use offensive stars Gretzky and Jari Kurri as penalty killers, which led to shorthanded goals.
In Carpiniello’s book, Beukeboom credits Sather for his player-development abilities. "He was on his toes around his players and trying to teach them that little bit extra, or always trying to test them in a good, positive way."
"He always tried to get the best out of his players. When you needed to be brought down a notch, he was always willing to do that, also."
Beukeboom also stressed Sather’s knack for influencing his players off the ice.
"He tried to teach you an attitude, a way of carrying yourself, a way of being a professional on and off the ice that made you a stronger, confident, and better person and player overall."
Kenora Thistles are no Edmonton Oilers. Oilers had Messier and Anderson on their second line, you have Messier on your fist line and Dionne wasn't half as good as Messier in playoffs, oilers had Tikkanen who could do all the little things, they had Kevin Lowe, they had Grant Fuhr. And Edmonton never faced a team that was as good as Kilkenny defencively.
you're right, they aren't the oilers - in my opinion, they are better. we still have gretzky, messier, and coffey (the three major pieces to the dynasty). not having kurri hurts - he's an incredible two-way talent. dionne is a better replacement offensively. mullen is a decent replacement for anderson - certainly doesn't have as strong a playoff resume but, is a gritty, hard-working, speedy, two-way player. ramsey is a suitable replacement for lowe. kuzkin, sologubov, and svedberg are better then huddy, gregg, and fogolin. and thompson is an admirable replacement for fuhr.
the oilers were very successful against some great defensive players, especially the collection the dynasty islanders had...
new york islanders - trottier, potvin, tonelli, bourne, gillies, goring, langevin, morrow
philadelphia - kerr, propp, poulin, howe, sutter
boston - bourque, kasper