ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
To recap where I humbly have this series:
Coach - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Forwards - Slight Advantage Windsor
Defensemen - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Goalie - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Special Teams - Slight/Moderate Advantage Three Rivers
Power Play - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Three Rivers:
PP1:
Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe
Brodeur
PP2:
Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant
Brodeur
vs
Windsor:
PP 1:
Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau - Mike Bossy
Mark Howe - Brent Burns
Belfour
PP 2:
Henrik Zetterberg - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Doug Mohns - Earl Seibert
Belfour
The biggest difference of our respective PP's is the advantage in transition Three Rivers enjoys.
Let's start with Brodeur.
We know his rep as a puck handler and passer. And we also know that the G handles the puck almost every time it's cleared by the opposing team past center ice.
Having someone of Brodeur's caliber, being able to skate out, see the ice, handle the puck, and make a crisp pass, is a big advantage, as every second counts, in the highly structured environment that is special teams, most notably, on a 2-minute timer.
We often forget the G's role on the PP. I think nuances such as these are the real keys to victory.
Let's move to Doug Harvey (and Lapointe).
I've highlighted both a bunch over the last couple of series. One of the biggest confirmations, from a large number of sources, is that Harvey was the chief general of the Habs famous PP of the 50's. His ability to dictate the tempo and control the puck was legendary, as were his passes.
Lapointe was the most heavily used player out of the big 3, on those magnificent 70's Habs PP's. I pointed out earlier in this series how stellar Lapointe was in the deepest runs of his career. His shot was particularly effective.
Having Lapointe next to an already dominant player in Harvey, supported by Brodeur behind them and you have the recipe for a very successful transition game.
Cyclone Taylor brings an element nobody else can here. All word speed.
That's a huge plus coming out of your end, trying to navigate the neutral zone. A lot of players can skate fast but not handle the puck quite as well. Taylor doesn't have that issue. That skating ability puts defenders on their heels. You get a great idea of the impact I'm talking about when looking at McDavid. in today's game.
Bowie was a masterclass stickhandler, beyond scoring goals. I think his role as a bumper to net presence makes for an extremely dangerous player with the man advantage, a little extra space never hurt a finisher like that, especially when you consider who's surrounding him as passers.
Kucherov's PP brilliance has been highlighted as well, I don't need to repost the tables and counting stats. His ability to see the ice and anticipate is a big reason why he's such a lethal player in this part of the game. He's also a magician with the puck, ala the other F's.
Still, I would give Windsor an edge among top unit F's.
Most people will focus on Beliveau and Bossy, rightfully so, as they are incredible offensive weapons as ES, let alone on the PP. I don't want people to sleep on Blake, as he posted the best PP numbers in the NHL over the course of his career (mid 30's to late 40's).
So, while I think Blake is the overall, lowest ranked F out of the 6, he's still a very strong option on the PP.
There is just a bigger gap when looking at the D.
A lot of Mark Howe's value came at ES. He wasn't used on the PP nearly as much as his counterparts. I'm not dismissing him as a player, certainly, but Howe just doesn't have the kind of history Harvey, or even Lapointe do as PP difference makers.
Burns is a better option on the PP, in a lot of ways similar to Lapointe, a bit goal dominant from the point, but someone who's played a lot in this area and produced over a long period of time.
I don't see Belfour giving any sort of real lift to the PP for Windsor.
And therein lies another nuance.
The art of transition is no easy road. If it were, teams would score a good bit more up a man. Getting the puck into the offensive zone isn't a formality. It takes a unit. And as I've said from the first series we've taken part in, I think Three Rivers has the most well rounded and effective PP set ups in the 2024 ATD.
When you look to the 2nd units, I think we have the slight advantage at F.
Barry, Schriner, and Morris > Zetterberg, Fredrickson, Heatley, thanks to a higher offensive ceiling on the whole.
Three Rivers also has 4 players (Taylor/Bowie/PP1, Barry/Morris/PP2) adept at taking faceoffs. Windsor has 3 players with C credentials. In the event the primary man is kicked out, we have a nuanced edge in gaining possession.
I actually quite like the defensemen on Windsor's 2nd unit. Mohns was an underrated offensive player (had a heavy shot) and posted pretty strong PP numbers as a Dman in Boston. Seibert wasn't a spectacular offensive player, but he's more than capable here on a 2nd unit.
Patrick and Grant were both highly regarded offensive players from the blue line. Both were big stars and contemporary praise for their offensive brilliance/ability is robust. Their top end skating/speed is also a boon in keeping PK units honest.
Seibert is comfortably the best player of the bunch (in an overall sense, but not offensively speaking) and Mohns the weakest, so in a nutshell, I'd say this is a wash between defensemen on our respective 2nd units. I do prefer our pair by a smidge, as they're a more experienced and battle tested duo in a playoff atmosphere.
In summary, I think the F's are very evenly matched when cumulatively examining both groups but Three Rivers wins out due to their superior top pairing on defense and having the best puck moving G of all time in Brodeur.
Penalty Kill - Moderate Advantage Three Rivers
Three Rivers:
PK1:
Mackell-Leswick
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
vs
Windsor:
PK 1:
Vinny Damphousse - Henrik Zetterberg
Ryan Suter - Earl Seibert
PK 2:
Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Mark Howe - Bob Goldham
When looking at the F's, I'm certainly more fond of our group. Not only because of the defensive acumen but the skating of the 4 players (Leswick, Mackell, Bourne, Taylor) is a wonderful boost. Mackell, Bourne, and Taylor all had top of the charts skating, especially Taylor. This will aid in putting pressure on the points, taking away time and space, not to mention giving pause to Windsor's PP, for fear of turning it over and being caught in odd man/breakaway situations. This is especially true with Bourne/Taylor. Tired 1st unit PP players for Windsor will certainly need to be on edge.
I've posted scouting reports on Bourne, people already know about Taylor and you'll see the contemporary praise for Leswick/Mackell below.
Leswick and Mackell were both highly regarded defensive and PK players. Here are some contemporary quotes on both.
Leswick:
Mackell
I'm a bit surprised that MacKay isn't on the top unit. I certainly think he's the best defensive F out of the 4 and given he's a 3rd liner in this, would probably be best used on the top unit w/Zetterberg, who was a more effective checker at ES and wasn't used extensively as a killer in real life. Consider he ranked 516th over the course of his career (02-03 to 17-18) in average TOI/SH at 1:06 minutes per game.
I don't really see him as a viable top unit player at this level. Can he do it? Sure, but didn't have the reputation of someone like Leswick, Mackell, and Bourne.
I don't see Damphousse as anything more than passable as a PK player in an ATD setting either and lastly, Jacques Lemaire was used much more on the PP than PK (he had 6 total SH points over a 12 year career) in the 70's by Bowman. His rep as a 2 way player was pretty strong, but he simply wasn't a major contributor in this kind of role.
You can see the praise for Mackell and Leswick above and I'll re-post the scouting reports on Bourne from the 80's:
Bourne:
http://books.google.com/books?id=wpbLnSHBNHgC&pg=PT58&lpg=PT58&dq=bob+bourne+versatility&source=bl&ots=XN8Z4bp-ra&sig=DX9IyOdf13rWlkNNj1WJ57Vs9VM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=99IcU5vkMoSj0QG02YDwDQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=bob bourne versatility&f=false
As we get into the defensemen, the top unit of Three Rivers is yet again, an advantage as Pulford/Harvey >> Suter/Seibert.
Pulford/Harvey has everything you want in a killing duo and their reps (massive contemporary praise for overall rep, physicality, positioning, calmness under fire, etc, etc) as defensive players cements this thought IMHO.
I think Seibert was a good but not great defensive player, at least not on the consistent level of Harvey or Pulford, especially the former. He was very strong, blocked shots well, and was a huge player so I do think he'd do very well in a traditional PK role but there is simply far more established with Pulford/Harvey in the defensive area.
Suter was a good 2 way defensemen, at times great, but PK'ing, like many of the other players on the Windsor units, wasn't a primary duty and usage is lacking a bit for this stage, certainly as a top unit player.
Consider from the beginning of his career (2005-06) until now, he ranks 236th overall in PK TOI/per game (2:09).
Looking into the 2nd unit, Windsor does get a pair of W's with MacKay over Taylor and Goldham over Marshall, though I certainly think Bourne and Lapointe > Lemaire and Howe, so all in all, I've got these duo's as a wash.
Most of the PK forwards for Windsor are more geared towards counter offensive chances than outright defending IMO and aren't traditional PK players. The issue with that is I think our team has such exemplary and experienced defensemen (and puck moving G) that mistakes will be minimal and efficiency will favor both our units.
Coach - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Forwards - Slight Advantage Windsor
Defensemen - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Goalie - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Special Teams - Slight/Moderate Advantage Three Rivers
Power Play - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Three Rivers:
PP1:
Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe
Brodeur
PP2:
Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant
Brodeur
vs
Windsor:
PP 1:
Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau - Mike Bossy
Mark Howe - Brent Burns
Belfour
PP 2:
Henrik Zetterberg - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Doug Mohns - Earl Seibert
Belfour
The biggest difference of our respective PP's is the advantage in transition Three Rivers enjoys.
Let's start with Brodeur.
We know his rep as a puck handler and passer. And we also know that the G handles the puck almost every time it's cleared by the opposing team past center ice.
Having someone of Brodeur's caliber, being able to skate out, see the ice, handle the puck, and make a crisp pass, is a big advantage, as every second counts, in the highly structured environment that is special teams, most notably, on a 2-minute timer.
We often forget the G's role on the PP. I think nuances such as these are the real keys to victory.
Let's move to Doug Harvey (and Lapointe).
I've highlighted both a bunch over the last couple of series. One of the biggest confirmations, from a large number of sources, is that Harvey was the chief general of the Habs famous PP of the 50's. His ability to dictate the tempo and control the puck was legendary, as were his passes.
Lapointe was the most heavily used player out of the big 3, on those magnificent 70's Habs PP's. I pointed out earlier in this series how stellar Lapointe was in the deepest runs of his career. His shot was particularly effective.
Having Lapointe next to an already dominant player in Harvey, supported by Brodeur behind them and you have the recipe for a very successful transition game.
Cyclone Taylor brings an element nobody else can here. All word speed.
That's a huge plus coming out of your end, trying to navigate the neutral zone. A lot of players can skate fast but not handle the puck quite as well. Taylor doesn't have that issue. That skating ability puts defenders on their heels. You get a great idea of the impact I'm talking about when looking at McDavid. in today's game.
Bowie was a masterclass stickhandler, beyond scoring goals. I think his role as a bumper to net presence makes for an extremely dangerous player with the man advantage, a little extra space never hurt a finisher like that, especially when you consider who's surrounding him as passers.
Kucherov's PP brilliance has been highlighted as well, I don't need to repost the tables and counting stats. His ability to see the ice and anticipate is a big reason why he's such a lethal player in this part of the game. He's also a magician with the puck, ala the other F's.
Still, I would give Windsor an edge among top unit F's.
Most people will focus on Beliveau and Bossy, rightfully so, as they are incredible offensive weapons as ES, let alone on the PP. I don't want people to sleep on Blake, as he posted the best PP numbers in the NHL over the course of his career (mid 30's to late 40's).
So, while I think Blake is the overall, lowest ranked F out of the 6, he's still a very strong option on the PP.
There is just a bigger gap when looking at the D.
A lot of Mark Howe's value came at ES. He wasn't used on the PP nearly as much as his counterparts. I'm not dismissing him as a player, certainly, but Howe just doesn't have the kind of history Harvey, or even Lapointe do as PP difference makers.
Burns is a better option on the PP, in a lot of ways similar to Lapointe, a bit goal dominant from the point, but someone who's played a lot in this area and produced over a long period of time.
I don't see Belfour giving any sort of real lift to the PP for Windsor.
And therein lies another nuance.
The art of transition is no easy road. If it were, teams would score a good bit more up a man. Getting the puck into the offensive zone isn't a formality. It takes a unit. And as I've said from the first series we've taken part in, I think Three Rivers has the most well rounded and effective PP set ups in the 2024 ATD.
When you look to the 2nd units, I think we have the slight advantage at F.
Barry, Schriner, and Morris > Zetterberg, Fredrickson, Heatley, thanks to a higher offensive ceiling on the whole.
Three Rivers also has 4 players (Taylor/Bowie/PP1, Barry/Morris/PP2) adept at taking faceoffs. Windsor has 3 players with C credentials. In the event the primary man is kicked out, we have a nuanced edge in gaining possession.
I actually quite like the defensemen on Windsor's 2nd unit. Mohns was an underrated offensive player (had a heavy shot) and posted pretty strong PP numbers as a Dman in Boston. Seibert wasn't a spectacular offensive player, but he's more than capable here on a 2nd unit.
Patrick and Grant were both highly regarded offensive players from the blue line. Both were big stars and contemporary praise for their offensive brilliance/ability is robust. Their top end skating/speed is also a boon in keeping PK units honest.
Seibert is comfortably the best player of the bunch (in an overall sense, but not offensively speaking) and Mohns the weakest, so in a nutshell, I'd say this is a wash between defensemen on our respective 2nd units. I do prefer our pair by a smidge, as they're a more experienced and battle tested duo in a playoff atmosphere.
In summary, I think the F's are very evenly matched when cumulatively examining both groups but Three Rivers wins out due to their superior top pairing on defense and having the best puck moving G of all time in Brodeur.
Penalty Kill - Moderate Advantage Three Rivers
Three Rivers:
PK1:
Mackell-Leswick
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
vs
Windsor:
PK 1:
Vinny Damphousse - Henrik Zetterberg
Ryan Suter - Earl Seibert
PK 2:
Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Mark Howe - Bob Goldham
When looking at the F's, I'm certainly more fond of our group. Not only because of the defensive acumen but the skating of the 4 players (Leswick, Mackell, Bourne, Taylor) is a wonderful boost. Mackell, Bourne, and Taylor all had top of the charts skating, especially Taylor. This will aid in putting pressure on the points, taking away time and space, not to mention giving pause to Windsor's PP, for fear of turning it over and being caught in odd man/breakaway situations. This is especially true with Bourne/Taylor. Tired 1st unit PP players for Windsor will certainly need to be on edge.
I've posted scouting reports on Bourne, people already know about Taylor and you'll see the contemporary praise for Leswick/Mackell below.
Leswick and Mackell were both highly regarded defensive and PK players. Here are some contemporary quotes on both.
Leswick:
Originally Posted by The Trail Of the Stanley Cup said:
Ultimate Hockey said:
What It Means To Be a Red Wing: Metro Prystai said:
Players: The Ultimate A-Z Guide OF Everyone Who Has Ever Played In the NHL said:
Frank Boucher said:
Vic Stasiuk said:
Bill Chadwick said:
Mackell
Joe Pelletier said:
The Provincial Journal - February 12th said:
The Globe and Mail - April 9th said:
-Lewiston Daily Sun, June 7, 1958
I'm a bit surprised that MacKay isn't on the top unit. I certainly think he's the best defensive F out of the 4 and given he's a 3rd liner in this, would probably be best used on the top unit w/Zetterberg, who was a more effective checker at ES and wasn't used extensively as a killer in real life. Consider he ranked 516th over the course of his career (02-03 to 17-18) in average TOI/SH at 1:06 minutes per game.
I don't really see him as a viable top unit player at this level. Can he do it? Sure, but didn't have the reputation of someone like Leswick, Mackell, and Bourne.
I don't see Damphousse as anything more than passable as a PK player in an ATD setting either and lastly, Jacques Lemaire was used much more on the PP than PK (he had 6 total SH points over a 12 year career) in the 70's by Bowman. His rep as a 2 way player was pretty strong, but he simply wasn't a major contributor in this kind of role.
You can see the praise for Mackell and Leswick above and I'll re-post the scouting reports on Bourne from the 80's:
Bourne:
Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey 1980 said:
Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey 1981 said:
Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey 1983 said:
Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey 1984 said:
Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey 1985 said:
NYI TOP 10: Penalty Killers 6-10
-Who's Who in Hockey
http://books.google.com/books?id=wpbLnSHBNHgC&pg=PT58&lpg=PT58&dq=bob+bourne+versatility&source=bl&ots=XN8Z4bp-ra&sig=DX9IyOdf13rWlkNNj1WJ57Vs9VM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=99IcU5vkMoSj0QG02YDwDQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=bob bourne versatility&f=false
As we get into the defensemen, the top unit of Three Rivers is yet again, an advantage as Pulford/Harvey >> Suter/Seibert.
Pulford/Harvey has everything you want in a killing duo and their reps (massive contemporary praise for overall rep, physicality, positioning, calmness under fire, etc, etc) as defensive players cements this thought IMHO.
I think Seibert was a good but not great defensive player, at least not on the consistent level of Harvey or Pulford, especially the former. He was very strong, blocked shots well, and was a huge player so I do think he'd do very well in a traditional PK role but there is simply far more established with Pulford/Harvey in the defensive area.
Suter was a good 2 way defensemen, at times great, but PK'ing, like many of the other players on the Windsor units, wasn't a primary duty and usage is lacking a bit for this stage, certainly as a top unit player.
Consider from the beginning of his career (2005-06) until now, he ranks 236th overall in PK TOI/per game (2:09).
Looking into the 2nd unit, Windsor does get a pair of W's with MacKay over Taylor and Goldham over Marshall, though I certainly think Bourne and Lapointe > Lemaire and Howe, so all in all, I've got these duo's as a wash.
Most of the PK forwards for Windsor are more geared towards counter offensive chances than outright defending IMO and aren't traditional PK players. The issue with that is I think our team has such exemplary and experienced defensemen (and puck moving G) that mistakes will be minimal and efficiency will favor both our units.
