ATD 2024 championship final: Trois Rivieres AC vs. Windsor Spitfires

[VanIslander]

The 2024 All-Time Draft Final
Milt Dunnell Cup championship series:


Trois Rivieres AC

coaches Punch Imlach, Bob Johnson

Sweeney Schriner - Cyclone Taylor (A) - Bernie Morris
Paul Thompson - Russell Bowie - Mikita Kucherov
Tony Leswick - Marty Barry - Bobby Bauer
Bob Bourne - Fleming Mackell - Claude Lemieux
Jack Adams

Doug Harvey - Guy Lapointe
Harvey Pulford (A) - Lester Patrick (C)
Mike Grant - Jack Marshall
Si Griffis

Martin Brodeur
Percy LeSueur


vs.


Windsor Spitfires

coach Barry Trotz

Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau (C) - Mike Bossy
Henrik Zetterberg (A) - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Smokey Harris - Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Gilles Tremblay - Vincent Damphousse - Ken Randall
Ernie Russell, Eric Staal

Mark Howe - Earl Seibert (A)
Ryan Suter - Brent Burns
Doug Mohns - Bob Goldham
Sandis Ozolinsh

Ed Belfour
Ed Giacomin
​

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Post your special teams, links, photos, comments, etc.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Taylor Bowie vs Beliveau Fredrickson is a sick matchup down the middle.

 

[spitsfan24]

Here are my special teams:

PP 1:

Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau - Mike Bossy
Mark Howe - Brent Burns

PP 2:

Henrik Zetterberg - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Doug Mohns - Earl Seibert

PK 1:

Vinny Damphousse - Henrik Zetterberg
Ryan Suter - Earl Seibert

PK 2:

Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Mark Howe - Bob Goldham

I'll be back to get the discussion started with some general thoughts within the next few days.

 

[spitsfan24]

Or right now.

Starting at the very top, the Spitfires have a massive advantage when it comes to top lines. The Spits are better at all three positions, and their skill sets all mesh together wonderfully. Trotz looks forward to putting Beliveau's line out there against TR's top unit consistently, and it's a matchup I fully expect to be a huge factor in the Spits prevailing. This is the biggest advantage either team possesses in this final.

TR's second line is very offensively gifted. If they're not producing offense, however, there's not much else on the bone, so to speak.

Mitigating Kucherov's offense is of great importance, and the Spits are going to make life very difficult for him in this series. For one, he'll be seeing a lot of Zetterberg.

With a lot of offensive-minded players, physicality is a great way to deter them from playing at their best. In Kucherov's case, it seems to be the opposite. He's so slippery and incredibly adept at avoiding hard contact. A rugged, physical defenceman always looking for a bone-crushing hit plays right into his strengths, allowing him to pick apart the defence after luring someone out of position.

That being said, you'll find much more success defending him with a positionally-sound, suffocating-space player archetype.

Both Henrik Zetterberg and Ryan Suter fit this description to a tee, so Windsor is very well-equipped to slow him down.

Either Zetterberg or Suter will be tasked with marking Kucherov closely, closing in on him with effective positioning, stick-work and gap control. Since Suter is paired with Burns, it allows Windsor to utilize Brent at his best. While Suter (or Zetterberg) is essentially shadowing Kucherov, Burns uses his foremost defensive skill - his incredibly long reach - to swallow up passing lanes, which either leads to no high-danger scoring chances against, or a turnover that sends Windsor out in transition.

With the Spits' clear-cut top line superiority, Kucherov and Bowie are going to be asked to do a lot of the heavy lifting offensively. I believe the Spits have the horses to be a matchup nightmare for them, and like I already said, if TR's second line isn't dominating offensively, they don't bring much else to the table.

Windsor's top-nine is incredibly well-balanced, affecting play positively in all three zones. I think TR has too many one-dimensional players in their top-nine to say the same.

So, a quick forward recap: Windsor with a massive leg up on TR's first line (and the biggest advantage of the series), and pretty even top-nines when you look beyond pure offensive ability. If you want to give an edge to TR's fourth line, that's certainly fair, but my fourth line is out there to shrink the game, allowing my game-breakers to do more damage. They fill that role perfectly, so I'm perfectly fine with what they're contributing to the team.

-----

Shifting to the blueline, I see two teams that are propped up by elite defencemen.

Our first pairs are both incredible - in skill and fit. Howe-Seibert and Harvey-Lapointe complement each other beautifully. There's one thing I wonder about, though, and in a series of this magnitude, it could come into play. Consider this post from Overpass in reference to Doug Harvey:

Harvey was a great defensive-defenceman with almost no offence added to the package until 1955 when he became the two-way stud we all know of today.

This was seemingly influenced by two factors, both of which work against TR:

1. Toe Blake taking over as coach. Harvey blossomed under the leadership of Blake, and it's probably not a stretch to say he knows Harvey better than almost anybody in the world; as a hockey player and as a human being. With Blake on Windsor's top line, this information could be valuable.
2. Shifting from LD to RD at even strength. This is pretty important in my opinion. As a LD, Harvey was a great player. As a RD, he became one of the best players of all-time. Part of Harvey's appeal is his fantastic two-way play. If playing him at LD limits that in any way, shape, or form? You're not getting the best from him. And with Seibert and Howe anchoring things for Windsor, I think it's very possible they're a more logical choice as a top pairing.

I've already outlined why I think Suter and Burns will experience success in this series, so I don't have too much to add there. Our second and third pairs look to be pretty even.

And since I know it'll be brought up, I'll say exactly what I said last round in terms of goaltending.

Over a long period of time (whether that be a full season or 20 full seasons), Brodeur is likely to be the more consistent goalie. But with a short sample size that a seven-game series brings with it, Belfour can easily play just as good as (if not, better than) Brodeur. I don't see it as being much of a factor at all, really.

In closing, while both teams have similar forward and defensive depth, Windsor's dominant first line, attention to detail in all facets of the game, and perhaps some question marks regarding the usage of Harvey, will ultimately lead them to prevail over TR and hoist the championship high above their heads.

 

[VanIslander]

Trotz, Heatley, Suter-Burns 2nd pairing, Belfour... seals it!

 

[nabby12]

Trotz, Heatley, Suter-Burns 2nd pairing, Belfour... seals it!

Soooooo salty.

Keep on crying, VanIslander. And you wonder why nobody likes you here.

Your team couldn't even get to Game 7 against the players you just listed too.

 

[spitsfan24]

Trotz, Heatley, Suter-Burns 2nd pairing, Belfour... seals it!

Oh my, this again?

I responded to all this in great detail last round. I really don't want to rehash this discussion again.

Putting aside the rash generalizations about draft positioning and "championship material", I still haven't heard any reasoning why these players don't fit well on my team.

If you have any thoughts on this championship series specifically, I'm happy to discuss that with you. But these sarcastic remarks aren't adding any value to the finals.

 

[VanIslander]

Soooooo salty. Keep on crying, VanIslander. And you wonder why nobody likes you here.

I would not be here if i thought this true.

I say what i think is true. I make mistakes. I hit the target. I have taken B.A. and M A. programs in Philosophy (got an A+ in Informal Logic), newspaper reported for years and head edited a newsroom for nearly a year (until the publisher in the pocket of the local supermarket owner/ top advertiser started trying to sway news stories) . When i was 18 in 1987 my beloved father who supported me in everything i did as youth, from soccer, to Boy Scouts, to skiing to golfing,. on my 18th birthday said. .... "You're a man now. Go make your way." He added: i'd never give you a penny again but there would be a home always there for him. ... i have been supporting myself for 35+ years. When he passed, my rock went away, but actually it is still here.

I love ATDs. I don't gaf what people think of my opinion, though i care about feelings. I teach kindy these days.

 

[VanIslander]

nabby12. ... maybe what you said is true.

DO YOU LIKE ME?

If this post doesn't get five likes i will not bother you guys again

 

[nabby12]

I would not be here if i thought this true.

I say what i think is true. I make mistakes. I hit the target. I have taken B.A. and M A. programs in Philosophy (got an A+ in Informal Logic), newsoaper reported for years and head edited a newsroom for nearly a year (until the publisher in the pocket of the local supermarket owner/ top advertiser started trying to sway news stories) . When i was 18 in 1987 my beloved father who supported me in everything i did as youth, from soccer, to Boy Scouts, to skiing to golfing,. on my 18th birthday said. .... "You're a man now. Go make your way." He added: i'd never get a penny from him again but a home was always there for him. ... i have been supporting myself for 35+ years. When he passed, my rock went away, but actually it is still here.

I love ATDs. I don't gaf what people think of my opinion, though i care about feelings. I teach kindy these days.

Blah blah blah, nobody cares about your life story that you seem to post about every couple of days here.

Next time, don't try and take shots at teams that just swiftly whooped you out of the ATD.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I am back home and just got up after a days rest...PA to Colorado is a stout drive twice inside of 2 weeks lol. I will begin my assessment of this series tonight.

Also, Van, please just stop. What is the point of posting the shot above? Boredom? Vindictiveness?

We've all had teams we thought should have won a series or went further. I say this as someone who's been on the wrong side of acting like an ass after being on the losing end of a fantasy match up.

This is the thread for the Milt Dunnell Cup, that you posted. I said earlier in the week I was traveling and wouldn't be able to post anything until this weekend.

Let's keep the discussion about THIS series. Keep it about the coaches and players. Not about the other posters.

If I can do it, anyone can.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Forwards:

Sweeney Schriner​	Cyclone Taylor​	Bernie Morris​
Paul Thompson​	Russell Bowie​	Nikita Kucherov​
Tony Leswick​	Marty Barry​	Bobby Bauer​
Bob Bourne​	Fleming Mackell​	Claude Lemieux​
​	​	​

- Spare: Jack Adams - C/LW

​

Defensemen:

Doug Harvey	Guy Lapointe
Harvey Pulford	Lester Patrick
Mike Grant	Jack Marshall

-Spare: Si Griffis - D/C

- Note: Jack Marshall, a right handed shot, can also play C, and will be the person to shift up to the 4C spot, if/when Imlach were to move Taylor back to D.


Goalies:

Martin Brodeur

Percy LeSueur

Special Teams:

PP1:

Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe

PP2:

Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant

PK1:

Mackell-Leswick
Pulford-Harvey

PK2:

Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall

 

[ImporterExporter]

@spitsfan24 Once again, congratulations on making it to this point! I've enjoyed seeing you build this squad and then go to bat for it along the way. Your top line was among my favorite of the entire draft. And you managed to get an elite C, a legitimate #1D and a G who isn't among the weakest starters in the draft. That's generally a great foundation for a long run here. I think this is a close series, though ultimately think our squad is the better of the 2 and look forward to laying out why we should come out on top.

I'm going to post each section at a time. That will give Spits time to digest and respond (as well as any other observers) while I work on the subsequent areas of analysis.

I'll start with coaching, and then move on to forwards, defensemen, special teams, etc.

Here we go!



Coaching - Punch Imlach/Bob Johnson vs Barry Trotz - Slight Advantage Three Rivers

I wanted to start this overview with giving our franchise a moderate victory in a key area, head-to-head. With that being said, I do want to err on the side of being conservative in my views of our team (wanting the win) in relation to Windsor.

I don't really need to rehash the accomplishments of Imlach. and certainly, think his 4 Cups (3 in a row at one point) during the 1960's speaks for itself. Especially considering the competition at the time and how the Leafs had largely become a laughingstock as the 50's rolled on with Imlach not only coaching the squad but working as it's GM simultaneously.

It took me a while to come around on Trotz. He always seemed like the guy who got a lot of mileage out of the regular season counting stats go but faltered so many times in the playoffs, even when coaching one of the better rosters in the tournament.

With that being said, he finally got that elusive ring in 2018 and then overachieved for a few years with the Islanders and showed there was still some magic left in his style of play.

Still, he guided 1 team, in 23 years, to the SCF. There is a lot of longevity to like, but when the chips are down, and you need a 7-game series win, I think he's comfortably behind Imlach in terms of career value + accomplishment.

As you'll see in some of the newspaper clippings Imlach and Beliveau were very close, from Imlach's days with the Quebec Aces. He mentored Beliveau, who credits Imlach as being a vital part of his career arc.

Imlach ended up being the coach who saw the Leafs make it pretty difficult on Beliveau, in the postseason, throughout the 60's.

1960 SCF - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 4 points in 4 games (+5)

1963 Semi Final - Leafs win 4-1
Beliveau 3 points in 5 games (-1)

1964 Semi Fain - Leafs win 4-3
Beliveau 2 points in 5 games (-2)

1965 Semi Final - Habs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (even)

1966 Semi Final - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 5 points in 4 games (+1)

1967 SCF - Leafs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (-1)

Even in the 3 series wins, Beliveau didn't explode. 15 points in 14 games. Over the 3 losses? 11 in 16. A decent downturn in production.

Imlach used Red Kelly's skating to put pressure on Jean in real life. Is there a better player in history to replicate that look than Taylor?

The physicality of the Leafs defensemen also gave Beliveau fits, and when I look at Doug Harvey, Guy Lapointe, and Harvey Pulford specifically (3 of the 4 biggest minute getters on D) I can envision Beliveau again dealing with a lot of bumps and bruises.

Harvey's IQ was off the charts. He'd have the book on Beliveau (that surely does go both ways of course) and coupled with Punch Imlach's ability to historically contain and even slow #4 gives us a better feeling as far as match ups go.

Last series, Leswick was our ace against the opponent's top player (overall+offensive), Maurice Richard.

In this match up, it may just be our coach, Punch against his student Beliveau.

Here is a small portion of the trove I have on Imlach. Enjoy!

Working with assistant(s)

@Johnny Engine and I spoke about Imlach having a history working with an assistant (King Clancy) being the calm to Imlach's storm. Below are a few snips I've unearthed with both Dink Carroll and then Frank Currie citing Clancy as the "assistant" and being the one to help smooth any grievances over with players.

This is why we decided on Bob Johnson as a late pick to help set up a similar structure. If we're playing the ATD by a modern structure (4 lines, 3 pairs, special teams), there are instantly more responsibilities for a coach of those distant eras to contend with.

Johnson helps aid both in the tactical regard (in this case, special teams specifically) and most importantly, is the counterweight to Imlach's harsher, straight to the point, MO.

He also allowed veteran players to handle practices in the even that GM duties took him away. We think old time brilliant hockey minds/leaders like Lester Patrick and Harvey Pulford will be right at home in those situations.

 

[spitsfan24]

@ImporterExporter First of all, thanks for the kind words. You've obviously built quite the team over in Trois Rivieres as well.

Now, down to business.

To be clear, I don't disagree with your overarching point about Imlach giving TR a slight coaching advantage. But I would like to comment on a few things you mentioned.

Yet again using part of an Overpass post, here are the even-strength matchups in all games played involving Beliveau in Toronto after Kelly arrived. So, the matchups that Imlach hunted more or less.

Beliveau-Kelly, games in Toronto
1960-61: -0.78
1961-62: 0.50
1962-63: -0.78
1963-64: -0.17
1964-65: -0.80
1965-66: -0.51
1966-67: -0.76

For those that don't know, the closer the number is to -1, the higher percentage of ice time is estimated to be shared.

Going back to the numbers you posted where Beliveau plays Toronto in the playoffs, this leaves us with the following matchups to analyze:

1963 Semi Final - Leafs win 4-1
Beliveau 3 points in 5 games (-1)

1964 Semi Fain - Leafs win 4-3
Beliveau 2 points in 5 games (-2)

1965 Semi Final - Habs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (even)

1966 Semi Final - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 5 points in 4 games (+1)

1967 SCF - Leafs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (-1)

In 1963, the Kelly-Beliveau correlation is strong throughout the entire season (the matchups encompass regular season and playoffs), and Beliveau seems to be kept in check during the playoffs. This starts to give credence to your theory of Kelly (and thereby Taylor) being a nuisance to Beliveau.

In 1964, it doesn't look like Kelly deserves much of the credit for Beliveau's disappointing performance on the scoresheet.

In 1965, our strongest correlation yet. It seems Kelly is almost exclusively matched up against Beliveau and Jean has a great series, eventually leading to a Habs win.

In 1966, not a strong correlation, but not a weak one either. Beliveau has a great series anyway.

In 1967, Kelly and Beliveau again see a lot of each other. Beliveau has a pretty good series, but definitely nothing special.

So, to recap, in years that they met in the playoffs, the playoff series' that they (likely) saw the most of each other were 1963, 1965, and 1967. Only one of those series saw Beliveau underperform. I don't think there's any discernible difference between Beliveau's play against Kelly and everyone else. Especially considering my next point.

In 1965 and 1967, Beliveau's production against Imlach in the playoffs actually increased, compared to his regular season numbers. At this point in time, he was getting up there in age. Those were his 33 and 35 year old seasons respectively. I think his play against Imlach's elite Toronto teams in the twilight of his career should be applauded, not used as a minus against him.

Beliveau 1965 regular season: 43 points in 58 games
Beliveau 1965 Semi Final against Imlach: 6 points in 6 games

Beliveau 1967 regular season: 38 points in 53 games
Beliveau 1967 SCF against Imlach: 6 points in 6 games

Even past his prime, Beliveau performed very well against Imlach in the playoffs.

Furthermore, after the Rocket retired following their 1960 Cup win, Beliveau never played with as talented a scorer as he will in this series. If anything, Beliveau's play in the 1960 Cup Final (dominant offensively and territorially) is indicative of what he could do against TR with Bossy (and Blake).

Overall, I don't think Imlach is your "ace" against Beliveau, as you put it. Based on the factors I've laid out, Jean acquitted himself quite well against his mentor.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Forwards - Slight Advantage Windsor

Three Rivers

Sweeney Schriner - Cyclone Taylor (A) - Bernie Morris
Paul Thompson - Russell Bowie - Nikita Kucherov
Tony Leswick - Marty Barry - Bobby Bauer
Bob Bourne - Fleming Mackell - Claude Lemieux
Jack Adams

vs

Windsor

Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau (C) - Mike Bossy
Henrik Zetterberg (A) - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Smokey Harris - Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Gilles Tremblay - Vincent Damphousse - Ken Randall
Ernie Russell, Eric Staal

You might wonder how I gave Windsor the slight edge among F's, considering I do have Three Rivers winning 7 of the 12 individual match ups.

Well, Windsor does have a big advantage when comparing top lines, and obviously those are the biggest minute eaters.

While I do think that we make up a lot of ground considering all 7 of those head-to-head wins occur in the bottom 9, the gaps vary, and I do want to highlight Windsor's really well put together F group.

Blake-Beliveau-Bossy is just an all-time great ATD unit. They're all playoff dynamo's, especially Beliveau and Bossy who are all time great. The fit is there from left to right. In a lot of ways, this is simply an upgrade to the Olmstead-Geoffrion combo Beliveau had in the mid 50's.

As I talked about in the coaching section above, I do think Three Rivers is well positioned to slow Beliveau and Leswick will once again be a key defensive player getting a lot Bossy in this series.

Schriner's a better and more dynamic offensive player than Blake, and I don't see much of a gap between them all time, though Blake is still ahead thanks to the Hart and a better all-around reputation.

Obviously, there are only a few C's who will definitively come out ahead of Beliveau all time, and Taylor isn't one, though I don't see this as any sort of large gap. In the Top 100 project about a half decade ago, I had Beliveau 8th and Taylor 23rd all time. 5 C's separated them (Crosby, Messier, Mikita, Nighbor, Morenz). You could probably put McDavid in that group now, but the overall point is that LW and C are still relatively close between the 2 squads.

The largest and most dominant win is Bossy vs Morris. The latter may be a more rounded player, but make no mistake, it's a huge win for Windsor.

While the bulk of the remaining 9 F's tilt back to Three Rivers (IMHO, as I will show below), I want to give ample credit to the straight sweep between the top lines in favor of the Spitfires and is ultimately why I think their F group edges out.

Zetterberg > Thompson mainly due to the playoff peak of Zetterberg (Conn Smythe in 08 and a really impressive 3-year window), but Thompson was a 1st and 2nd team AS (Z managed a 2nd team nod once) and Hart runner up as a regular season player, not to mention was runner up in scoring on both Blackhawks title winners in 1934 and 38. Zetterberg brings versatility and a more defined 2-way game.

Bowie gives Three Rivers its first clear win between the 2 teams, among F.

We often talk about tiers, among players and I personally have Bowie on the 2nd tier among per-merger C's and Fredrickson on the 3rd.

Tier 1
Nighbor (would put him 15-20 all time)
Taylor (20-25)
Lalone (30-35)

Tier 2
Bowie (65-75)
Malone (70-80)

Tier 3
Fredrickson (120-130)
McGee (150-175)
Mackay (150-175)

Bowie's statistical dominance is well documented.

Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 1

Procedure You will be presented with ~15 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to @seventieslord & @rmartin65 Use the same...

forums.hfboards.com

Beginning there and going page by page will give you a really deep look into Bowie's career and why he ended up ranking where he did in the pre-merger project. @jigglysquishy and @rmartin65 produced a lot of great quotes and stats in the evaluation process.

Prior to 1910, nobody had the dominance of peak or longevity compared to Bowie. If he wasn't someone's pick as best player in the world between 1900 and 1908, his name was certainly near the top.

ATD 2017 Bios

Russell Bowie Thank you to TDMM and Dreakmur for the bulk of this Awards and Achievements: Stanley Cup Champion (1899) Allan Cup Champion (1909) Montreal Victorias Captain ECHA First Team All-Star (1905) Charles Coleman's 1893 to 1926 All-Star Team from The Trail of the...

forums.hfboards.com

A wonderful bio by RB with older material from TDMM also highlights the statistical absurdity that was Bowie year in and year out over much of the 1st decade of the 1900's.

This is a study of Russell Bowie I did a couple years ago, when I had access to SIHR's statistical database. If we were judging players strictly on how they did against their peers, Bowie would be our #2 behind Gretzky and ahead of Lemieux, but of course, level of competition MUST be taken into account, and hockey was still a developing league when Bowie played.

Bowie was a part of the first generation of hockey players to actually grow up at a time when competitive hockey was a thing. So I do have much more respect for their talents than the previous 1890s generation, none of whom played competitive hockey as children because there was no competitive hockey. Still, we have reasons to believe his generation was significantly weaker than the one that followed; those will be discussed after the study.

IF YOU WANT TO READ CONTEMPORARY QUOTES DESCRIBING RUSSELL BOWIE, GO TO THIS PROFILE AND SCROLL DOWN: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=59476193&postcount=66. The rest of this post will be statistical in nature, because scoring goals was what Bowie was best at, and goal scoring is the one reliable statistic we have from the era.

Over the course of Bowie's athletic prime, he basically doubled the second best goal scorer

From 1899 to 1908, Bowie scored 239 goals in 80 games (2.99 GPG). Blair Russell, the next closest scorer, had 109 goals in 67 games (1.62)

Bowie scored 219% as many goals as his closest competitor - his advantage drops to "only" 184% on a per-game basis. (Compare to Wayne Gretzky who scored 187% as many points as 2nd place Mark Messier from 1979-80 to 1993-94).

Bowie's most dominant season was 1901, when he scored 24 goals despite missing one of his team's eight games. The next highest scorer had 10 goals. Bowie scored more goals in seven games than the entire Quebec team did in eight games. However, competition was still pretty weak in 1901. Most of the HHOFers of the era didn't really get going until a couple years later. Bowie continued to dominate the HHOFers, but not by quite as ridiculous a margin.

Even if you cherrypick the absolute best years of the best players of the decade, Bowie easily beats them - and remember, Bowie's prime lasted much longer than these guys

Frank McGee vs. Russell Bowie (1903-1906)
McGee = 71 goals
Bowie = 106 goals
Bowie beat McGee by 33% over the entire course of McGee's career

Ernie Russell vs. Russell Bowie (1905-1908)
Russell = 90 goals
Bowie = 127 goals
Bowie beat Russell by 29%

Tommy Phillips vs. Russell Bowie (1905-1908)
Phillips = 94 goals
Bowie = 127 goals
This is not quite comparable because these are different leagues, but is worth noting that Bowie, while probably not quite in his prime anymore, scored 26% more goals than Tommy Phillips during Phillips absolute prime.

SIHR counted assists based off the detailed newspaper accounts in the era. This data suggests that Bowie could get the puck to his teammates better than most other players in the era.

No players have assists recorded for them in 1901, 1902, or 1905.

These are the only 5 seasons of his career for which we have assist data.

• His finishes: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 7th
• His VS2 scores: 100, 100, 100, 75, 60
• His VS1 scores: 100, 89, 75, 56, 33

At 0.50 assists per game, Bowie would be second to Alf Smith's 0.72 in reconstructed assists for the era, and he didn't have star linemates to pass to like Smith did (Smith took kind of a Wayne Cashman or Bert Olmstead role to Frank McGee and later Marty Walsh)
vast majority of hockey's top talents of the time were playing in these leagues.

Bowie's league/competition
Bowie played in the CAHL and the ECAHA, which were actually the same league under different names, between 1899 and 1908, which were not the only leagues in the world, but they were certainly the best leagues in the world. This line of leagues would eventually change its name to the NHA. The majority of hockey's top talents of the time were playing in these leagues.

The Stanley Cup was usually controlled by these leagues.

The question of course becomes "How strong was the overall hockey world before 1910?"

Bowies overall scoring finishes

• Bowie led the major hockey world in goals 5 times: He led the CHL/ECHA in 1901, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1908.
• He finished 2nd in goals 3 times: 1902, 1906, 1907.
• If you add in reconstructed assists for all players, Bowie led the major hockey world in points 7 times. He finished a close 2nd in goals in 1906 and 1907 to 2 different players, but reconstructed assists for every player would give him enough to finish 1st in points both seasons. He would still finish 2nd in points for 1902.

Ranking Bowie

It should be clear why I would call Bowie the "Wayne Gretzky of pre-1910 hockey." His statistical dominance over his peers is staggering. The cream of the pre-1910 crop can be broken down into Star Scorer (Bowie), Star Defenseman (Hod Stuart), Star Two-Way Forward (Tommy Phillips, a who will come up in the winger project). Bowie had the best longevity of the three of them.

Two important questions remain:

1) How impressive was it actually to dominate pre-1910 hockey?
2) Should Russell Bowie be the next pre-consolidation center we add, or should we wait until the 2nd tier of 1910-1926 guys (MacKay, Fredrickson, Keats IMO) shows up?

Bowie is someone I think you could put on a 1st line, in a 20+ team draft and have a legitimate #1 C.

He was obviously the dominant scorer of pre-1910 hockey. His stickhandling, beyond finishing, was also lauded as all world.

And with what rmartin specifically dug up on Bowie's other attributes, I think you can comfortably say he was a good leader (long time captain), a hardworking and scrappy C who put up absurd offensive totals, on a squad (Victorias) that was never the best in the business in terms of depth of talent. Ottawa was superior for much of the 1900's. Same with the Wanderers.

Bowie was overwhelmingly the best player on his team and shouldered a larger burden than any other player in my estimation.

Lastly, when you read everything that is available on Bowie, his offensive profile would seem to be a match made in heaven with a visionary like Kucherov, who has made a living off setting up goal dominant players like Stamkos and Point.

Kucherov offers a significant advantage over Dany Heatley. Yes, the latter is a bigger and more physical player, but nothing to write home about defensively or in terms of intangibles.

It's not quite Bossy to Morris but certainly a wide gap and 2nd largest among top 6 battles.

Three Rivers spreads their offensive capabilities well and I think this is another series where depth of scoring favors the AC.

Consider:

Schriner won multiple Art Ross trophies. Taylor won multiple league scoring titles. Bowie won a slew of league scoring titles and the Russian wizard just wrapped up his 2nd.

Bowie - 136.5 (Vs2 - years) - That # obliterates every other star from the pre-merger era though no one, myself included, has a great way to translate that to VsX or even compare, concretely, his #'s vs those who played post 1910.
Taylor - 103 (Vs2 - 7 years) - 94.0 (VsX equivalent by seventieslord)
Kucherov - 98 (VsX - 7 year)
Schriner - 91.3 (VsX - 7 year)
Thompson - 82.6 (VsX - 7 year)
Morris - 82.0 (VsX equivalent per seventieslord)

Combined Vs2 in NHA/NHL/PCHA 1910-1926.

Player	Vs2- 3 Years	Vs2 - 5 Years	Vs2 - 7 Years
Cyclone Taylor	128.1	119.2	103.0
Newsy Lalonde	110.6	106.7	99.3
Joe Malone	106.3	103.8	98.5
Cy Denneny	101.4	100.9	99.2
Frank Nighbor	97.4	90.7	82.4

For reference, Bowie's numbers come to 179.7 (3 year), 158.4 (5 year), 136.5 (7 year)

Bowie and Taylor are the only players from the pre-merger period who produce 100+. 7-year, Vs2 resumes. Taylor doing so despite playing a 3rd of his career as a defenseman.

Paul Thompson is an 82.6 (VsX - 7 year) and @seventieslord has Morris as a 82.0 7-year VsX equivalent.

Compare these figures with Windsor:

Beliveau - 105.7
Bossy - 94.8
Blake - 86.3
Fredrickson - 88.0 (VsX equivalent per seventies)
Heatley - 81.0
Zetterberg - 79.5

Depending on what you think of Taylor and Bowie's relative offensive value, Three Rivers has somewhere in the range of as much or more firepower offensively than Windsor.

Three Rivers Top 10 Scoring Finishes:

Bowie:

Goals - 1st (1901), 1st (1903), 1st (1904), 1st (1905), 1st (1908), 1st (1909*), 2nd (1900), 2nd (1902), 2nd (1906), 2nd (1907), 3rd (1899)
Reconstructed Assists: 1st (1904), 1st (1908), 2nd (1906), 3rd (1903), 7th (1907)
(not recorded in 1901, 1902, or 1905)
Rconstructed Points - 1st (1901), 1st (1903), 1st (1904), 1st (1905), 1st (1906), 1st (1907), 1st (1908), 1st (1909*), 2nd (1900), 2nd (1902), 3rd (1899)

Taylor:

ATD 2013 BIO Thread (quotes, stats, pics, sources, everything)

Note: Links can break over time so refrain from just posting links (links are best used to indicate source of post).

forums.hfboards.com

From our old ATD regular, Billyshoe:

2x Stanley Cup Champion
2x 2nd in NHA Points Among Defensemen
2nd in ECAHA Points Among Defensemen, 06-07
3rd in ECAHA Points Among Defensemen, 07-08
36 points in 29 games in IHL as Forward
5x Led PCHA in Assists
5x Led PCHA in Points
3x Led PCHA in Goals
1st all-time points in PCHA
1st all-time assists in PCHA

In addition, Taylor was named to the first all-star team in every season in his career up to 1918, at defense in the beginning of his career and later at rover.

Here are the two best attempts I've seen to put how dominant Taylor was in perspective compared to the rest of professional hockey, and within the PCHA

After adjusting to equalize the assists per game ratios, I have a new set of consolidated finishes for the 3 split league players who were selected.

Cyclone Taylor
Points – 1st(1914), 1st(1918), 1st(1919), 2nd(1915), 2nd(1916), 12th(1913)
Goals – 1st(1918), 1st(1919), 2nd(1916), 5th(1914), 8th(1915)
Assists – 1st(1913), 1st(1914), 1st(1915), 1st(1919), 2nd(1916), 2nd(1918)

Newsy Lalonde
Points – 1st(1921), 3rd(1919), 4th(1912), 4th(1920), 5th(1913), 5th(1916), 7th(1918), 8th(1917), 9th(1923), 14th(1914)
Goals – 3rd(1916), 4th(1912), 4th(1919), 4th(1920), 4th(1921), 5th(1913), 5th(1923), 7th(1918), 8th(1917), 12th(1914)
Assists – 2nd(1919), 8th(1921), 10th(1920), 13th(1917), 15th(1916), 15th(1918), 19th(1924)

Frank Nighbor
Points – 1st(1917), 5th(1913), 5th(1919), 5th(1920), 10th(1921), 11th(1926), 12th(1915), 15th(1916), 16th(1924), 18th(1918)
Goals – 1st(1917), 5th(1913), 6th(1919), 7th(1920), 11th(1921), 12th(1915), 12th(1916)
Assists – 1st(1926), 2nd(1920), 3rd(1917), 3rd(1919), 5th(1924), 8th(1921), 11th(1918), 15th(1915), 16th(1916), 17th(1922), 18th(1927)

Keep in mind, this only encompasses seasons after the PCHA began. Anything before 1912, is not listed here. That ignores large chunks of both Taylor's and Lalonde's careers, but hold all of Nighbor's.

Mind you, those 2 players are supported by 2 time Art Ross winner Schriner and Kucherov on the wings and 80+ VsX glue types in Thompson and Morris.

Schriner:
1, 1, 2, 7. 8,

Kucherov:
1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 7

Thompson:
2, 3, 8, 9, 10

Morris (thanks to Dreakmur):
PCHA Scoring:
PCHA Points - 1st(1917), 2nd(1916), 2nd(1918), 2nd(1919), 4th(1922), 6th(1921), 6th(1923)
PCHA Goals - 1st(1916), 2nd(1917), 2nd(1918), 2nd(1919), 4th(1923), 5th(1922), 9th(1921)
PCHA Assists - 1st(1918), 2nd(1917), 2nd(1921), 2nd(1922), 3rd(1919), 5th(1916)

Consolidated Scoring:
Points - 2nd(1919), 3rd(1916), 3rd(1917), 3rd(1918), 10th(1922), 12th(1921), 16th(1923)
Goals - 1st(1916), 2nd(1919), 4th(1917), 4th(1918)
Assists - 1st(1918), 3rd(1921), 4th(1919), 5th(1922), 8th(1916), 8th(1917)

Play-off Points - 1st(1917), 2nd(1924)


Windsor top 10 Scoring Finishes:

Beliveau:
1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9

Fredrickson: (thanks to Sturm)
Goals - 1st (22-23) ,3rd (20-21), 3rd (23-24), 4th (21-22) PCHA years ; [3rd (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [5th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th

- Assists - 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24), 2nd (21-22), 4th (20-21 -- PCHA years] ; [3rd (26-27), 8th (28-29) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 8th

- Points: - 1st (20-21), 3rd (21-22), 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [5th (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [4th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th

Bossy:
2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6

Blake:
1, 3, 3, 6, 7, 7

Heatley:
4. 4, 9,

Zetterberg:
6, 8

Schriner and Kucherov (4) double up Beliveau and Blake (2) in terms of league scoring titles.

Bowie and Taylor were 1st a combined staggering 11 times (I only counted Taylor's consolidated/reconstructed 1st place finishes).

Even the 2 lowest rated offensive players on Three Rivers, Thompson (2 times) and Morris (4) combined to finish 2nd or 3rd in consolidated scoring SIX times while the 2 lowest rated offensive players (Heatley and Zetterberg) never finished above 4th and were in the TOP 10 just 5 times combined.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=43086119&highligh

There has been some talk (BB brought this up last series) has been made about the defensive shortcomings in the top 6 for Three Rivers and once again, I'll highlight the overreaction.

Zetterberg is almost surely, the best defensive player out of the 12 players we're looking at here but beyond him, I don't exactly see any other definitive plusses for Windsor.

Blake might have been a plus but I'm not sure there is enough to concretely conclude that. I'm open to being corrected with enough material. Fredrickson was solid, Beliveau solid. Heatley and Bossy? Passable. No black marks whatsoever, but certainly no Selke level players outside of Zetterberg.

Bernie Morris sees a pretty big jump in terms of what he brings to the table beyond offense. His defensive game was praised numerous times throughout his career. Not Selke level mind you, but certainly solid. Taylor was at least solid and probably better if we count his rep as a defenseman. I personally think Thompson was in the solid camp. Schriner, like Heatley or Bossy was passable. There is nothing to indicate Bowie was a negative value player in this area and the advanced possession numbers and plus/minus figures for Kucherov can't bring you to the conclusion that he's hurting you. If I'm giving Bossy a passable grade, Kuch is right there as well.

I'm a big Smokey Harris fan. Did a thorough bio on him a few years back and think he was probably underrated by the pre-merger projected as he didn't place, in large part, I think, due to his rather meh scoring exploits. But Harris' biggest contributions are on the defensive side of the puck and in the corners.

In this regard, I think he and Leswick are very similar. Where I think Leswick edges out, comes down to his legendary pest abilities, specifically being a thorn in the side of all-time greats such as Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard. There are concrete instances of Leswick, slowing, or shutting down the best wingers of all time. His reputation as a defensive ace in the hole is well documented and these instances largely come from the postseason, when the stakes are highest.

Jacques Lemaire is a fantastic 3rd line, depth C in this draft. He gives you some 2-way abilities and very solid scoring metrics (77.9 VsX - 7 year) to go with a robust and shining playoff resume.

I simply see Barry as a better overall player. His 7-year VsX is considerably higher (89.6), He was surprisingly physical, especially when looking at the low PIM record and his playoff reputation is, like Lemaire, sterling, being one of, if not the best playoff performers of the entire 1930's.

Mickey MacKay > Bobby Bauer in large part due to the all-time standing of the former (he'd probably sneak into the very back end of a fresh top 200 player ever list) and reputation as a defensive stopper. I do think there are some things to nitpick with Mackay as his stock has taken a bit of a hit in recent years.

Mackay was one of the biggest culprits for an underperforming Millionaires team post Cyclone Taylor. That's long been dissected by RB (and others) and much of his career value came playing down the middle as a C/R.

His time at RW was largely spent being centered by Frank Boucher in Vancouver. Boucher was known as a playmaking C and we see MacKay's offensive profile shift to a more goal-based output as he turned into a W.

I don't see Lemaire as the same type of C. He's not as gifted offensively or defensively. He isn't the same type of line driver and facilitator as Boucher.

Seventies had MacKay right at 80 in terms of VsX equivalent, and Bauer, if you adjust for WWII would have been in an almost identical spot offensively as I pointed out in an earlier series thanks to a little study by BenchBrawl. The difference being most of MacKay's most prominent offensive seasons, came as a C/R.

Bauer was lauded by numerous people, as being the brains/smartest player from the Kraut line. 4 time AS, with 3 full, prime, seasons being lost to his service during WWII. He was an AS/Byng winner before and after the war so it's pretty safe to assume VsX doesn't represent his true offensive ceiling, and he likely lost an AS/Byng nod or 2.

We built the 3rd unit around the original production line (Herbie Lewis-Marty Barry-Larry Aurie) and Kraut line (Dumart-Schmidt-Bauer) and think Leswick-Barry-Bauer is extremely similar to what Barry had in real life in Detroit in mid to late 1930's.

Bob Bourne > Gilles Tremblay - Bourne simply has a more robust career of accomplishments, especially as a postseason player. He brings versatility, able to play all 3 F spots, his scoring being superb during the Islander dynastic run (74 points in 74 games) and was the noted PK ace during this time period as well for NY.

Damphouse is a nice 4th line player. He gives Windsor some offensive pep (74 7-year score) and was a solid defensive player (had 1 season with legitimate Selke votes) but I think the lesser known Mackell was actually a touch more impressive. He peaked as a 1st team AS, got a few Hart votes in another year, won a pair of Cups in Toronto and then led the playoffs in assists twice, and points once when he played for Boston, showing off impressive offensive chops as an older player.

Mackell also brings elite speed and was regarded as of the strongest PK players which is a valuable set of traits for a 4th line sparkplug. From what is written, had the Selke been around, he'd certainly have gotten more votes than Damphouse did, which is basically one season.

I think the gap is smaller between these 2 vs the wingers, but Mackell is still my pick head-to-head.

Lastly, Claude Lemieux is handedly a better player than Ken Randall. Pepe was an all-time great pest, and considering he was more of a depth player rather than star, had an extremely impressive run as a playoff performer. He led the playoffs in goals, twice. He won a Smythe in 1995. When the games are biggest, there aren't many you'd want in a bottom 6 role over Lemieux. Like Leswick, he was a player who other teams spent too much time worrying about, which is a big reason why Johnny and I split the 2 up, maximizing the amount of time we have an all-time great pest on the ice.

So, there you have it.

Ultimately, one can't ignore the super impressive top line of Windsor and the big head start that gives the team on the whole, when comparing the teams, line by line.

With that being said, the players start to tilt more and more the further down the line up card you go and there is a clear superiority for Three Rivers in spreading out the scoring wealth, making Windsor more dependent on their top line to produce.

And that top line is facing a tougher defensive gauntlet in Harvey, Lapointe, Pulford, Patrick + Brodeur, which is also important when projecting offensive outcomes in hypothetical match ups.

 

[ImporterExporter]

@ImporterExporter First of all, thanks for the kind words. You've obviously built quite the team over in Trois Rivieres as well.

Now, down to business.

To be clear, I don't disagree with your overarching point about Imlach giving TR a slight coaching advantage. But I would like to comment on a few things you mentioned.

Yet again using part of an Overpass post, here are the even-strength matchups in all games played involving Beliveau in Toronto after Kelly arrived. So, the matchups that Imlach hunted more or less.

Beliveau-Kelly, games in Toronto
1960-61: -0.78
1961-62: 0.50
1962-63: -0.78
1963-64: -0.17
1964-65: -0.80
1965-66: -0.51
1966-67: -0.76

For those that don't know, the closer the number is to -1, the higher percentage of ice time is estimated to be shared.

Going back to the numbers you posted where Beliveau plays Toronto in the playoffs, this leaves us with the following matchups to analyze:

1963 Semi Final - Leafs win 4-1
Beliveau 3 points in 5 games (-1)

1964 Semi Fain - Leafs win 4-3
Beliveau 2 points in 5 games (-2)

1965 Semi Final - Habs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (even)

1966 Semi Final - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 5 points in 4 games (+1)

1967 SCF - Leafs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (-1)

In 1963, the Kelly-Beliveau correlation is strong throughout the entire season (the matchups encompass regular season and playoffs), and Beliveau seems to be kept in check during the playoffs. This starts to give credence to your theory of Kelly (and thereby Taylor) being a nuisance to Beliveau.

In 1964, it doesn't look like Kelly deserves much of the credit for Beliveau's disappointing performance on the scoresheet.

In 1965, our strongest correlation yet. It seems Kelly is almost exclusively matched up against Beliveau and Jean has a great series, eventually leading to a Habs win.

In 1966, not a strong correlation, but not a weak one either. Beliveau has a great series anyway.

In 1967, Kelly and Beliveau again see a lot of each other. Beliveau has a pretty good series, but definitely nothing special.

So, to recap, in years that they met in the playoffs, the playoff series' that they (likely) saw the most of each other were 1963, 1965, and 1967. Only one of those series saw Beliveau underperform. I don't think there's any discernible difference between Beliveau's play against Kelly and everyone else. Especially considering my next point.

In 1965 and 1967, Beliveau's production against Imlach in the playoffs actually increased, compared to his regular season numbers. At this point in time, he was getting up there in age. Those were his 33 and 35 year old seasons respectively. I think his play against Imlach's elite Toronto teams in the twilight of his career should be applauded, not used as a minus against him.

Beliveau 1965 regular season: 43 points in 58 games
Beliveau 1965 Semi Final against Imlach: 6 points in 6 games

Beliveau 1967 regular season: 38 points in 53 games
Beliveau 1967 SCF against Imlach: 6 points in 6 games

Even past his prime, Beliveau performed very well against Imlach in the playoffs.

Furthermore, after the Rocket retired following their 1960 Cup win, Beliveau never played with as talented a scorer as he will in this series. If anything, Beliveau's play in the 1960 Cup Final (dominant offensively and territorially) is indicative of what he could do against TR with Bossy (and Blake).

Overall, I don't think Imlach is your "ace" against Beliveau, as you put it. Based on the factors I've laid out, Jean acquitted himself quite well against his mentor.

I was very clear in stating that Beliveau was never shut out (like Leswick did to Richard for example) when facing Imlach led teams. I don't expect him to be so in this series. But there is a downturn.

I believe Three Rivers is set up well, with Taylor assuming the Kelly role and most importantly, the defensemen + goalie present a very tough road for the top line of Windsor. You have a defensive group that is filled with high IQ players (including a top 10 player ever in Harvey), superb transition, well above average physicality, all backed by a goalie who's probably the best puck handler and passer of all time. And these are all battled tested, playoff lynchpins.

Beliveau in 3 Series wins? 15 points in 14 games. Over the 3 losses? 11 in 16.

Beliveau had a career 0.87 PPG (26 points/30 games) in the playoffs against Imlach led Toronto teams.

Beliveau had a career 1.09 PPG (176/162) in the playoffs (includes those 30 games above) against all teams.

Beliveau had a career 1.14 PPG (150/132) in the playoffs (removing 30 games against Leafs) against all non-Imlach led teams.

The bulk of Beliveau's peak playoff resume is made of the time before and after Imlach was coaching in Toronto, namely 54 through 58 and then 69 and 71. Again, I don't expect Beliveau to be a non-factor, but I do think we're uniquely set up to limit the damage he does.

 

[rmartin65]

On Bowie-

First- I think he was pretty easily the greatest player of the 1887-1909 era. And I do think Kucherov is a good offensive partner for him, though I would like to note that Bowie usually had a strong, hard-working defensive guy with him (Blair Russell), and I don't think Thompson is quite that guy. He's a different fit. But the Kucherov-Bowie connection is great offensively.

Second- I think we should be really careful about using VsX or Vs2 for this time period. While I think there was a lot of talent available in this era, it was spread out over a bunch of leagues. In the midst of Bowie's prime, we have top tier talent spread out over at least 3 leagues- the CAHL/ECAHA being the best, but there were really good players in the WPHL/IPHL, the FAHL at times, the Manitoba league, and possibly (though I am not certain, I am still doing the research) the AAHL and OPHL. If all that talent were consolidated, I am certain Bowie's score would be considerably lower than the 136 (if I remember correctly) you cited. What is the correct number? I don't know if we'll ever come up with a good solution (though I'm hoping that once I get through all of those leagues I can look at players who crossed leagues to come up with something half-way decent, but I'm probably a year away from getting there), but I do know that we shouldn't be taking individual league scores at face value.

Again, though- this isn't me knocking Bowie. He was a stud, and deserved (IMO) the bump he got this year. The game summaries, the newspapers of the day, and what is written late by people who actually saw this time period have me convinced that he is truly one of the greatest players of all time. But the counting stats need a lot more context than Vs2 and VsX can give right now.

 

[ImporterExporter]

On Bowie-

First- I think he was pretty easily the greatest player of the 1887-1909 era. And I do think Kucherov is a good offensive partner for him, though I would like to note that Bowie usually had a strong, hard-working defensive guy with him (Blair Russell), and I don't think Thompson is quite that guy. He's a different fit. But the Kucherov-Bowie connection is great offensively.

Second- I think we should be really careful about using VsX or Vs2 for this time period. While I think there was a lot of talent available in this era, it was spread out over a bunch of leagues. In the midst of Bowie's prime, we have top tier talent spread out over at least 3 leagues- the CAHL/ECAHA being the best, but there were really good players in the WPHL/IPHL, the FAHL at times, the Manitoba league, and possibly (though I am not certain, I am still doing the research) the AAHL and OPHL. If all that talent were consolidated, I am certain Bowie's score would be considerably lower than the 136 (if I remember correctly) you cited. What is the correct number? I don't know if we'll ever come up with a good solution (though I'm hoping that once I get through all of those leagues I can look at players who crossed leagues to come up with something half-way decent, but I'm probably a year away from getting there), but I do know that we shouldn't be taking individual league scores at face value.

Again, though- this isn't me knocking Bowie. He was a stud, and deserved (IMO) the bump he got this year. The game summaries, the newspapers of the day, and what is written late by people who actually saw this time period have me convinced that he is truly one of the greatest players of all time. But the counting stats need a lot more context than Vs2 and VsX can give right now.

Agree w/everything you said.

I have a tough time putting Bowie's #'s into context against later peers. I've been open about that many times, including previous series.

My gut (and head) says it's hard for me to conclude he's an 80's level (or lower) VsX equivalent, simply because you're starting to get into the depth stars of the different eras (a lot of 70's-80's C's, 2nd tier players from other eras). It "feels" wrong to place Bowie within that group of players.

Bowie simply crushed his era like no one else in hockey history, sans Gretzky. No one else was as consistently dominant over the years you mention which is 2+ decades long.

It's not just a ridiculous peak. His peak was also a lot longer than the vast majority of players from this era.

I believe it was this past series against Montreal, but I'd feel more comfortable putting Bowie somewhere in the 90's, as a VsX equivalent. That's the Cowley, Thornton, Boucher, Mac, Malkin, Trottier, Yzerman, Apps, Clarke, etc range of C's. A couple of those guys are probably coming in lower on a fresh top 100 list vs Bowie.

If we assume Bowie is better than say Thornton and Cowley and Bowie's offensive dominance is largely the reason for putting him in such a light, it stands to reason his relative offense would be on par (or better) than those players.

But, and there's usually always a but, that's not scientific. If someone comes up w/a legitimate way to merge this time period w/everything after, I'd be one of many appreciative curious hockey people.

 

[spitsfan24]

Lots of great discussion points here @ImporterExporter. Something that came to mind while reading it:

I think you did a really good job of arguing TR as having similar levels of offensive firepower to Windsor. But most of what you said is mainly applicable to the regular season. Almost my entire top six can bring their games to another level come postseason time.

In data compiled by pnep (going back to 1918), this is very clear.

Looking at goals scored by player divided by total goals in the series (Goals%), the Spitfires have four players in the top 40 (Bossy, Beliveau, Zetterberg, Blake).

Doing the same process with assists instead of goals (AST%), Blake ranks 5th, posting similar results as Connor McDavid and Wayne Gretzky.

Sticking with the theme, Blake finds himself one spot behind Mario Lemieux (8th) when points are used (PTS%).

When you apply the same procedure to the numbers, but only include players' best 10 series (allowing for guys who played forever and guys with short careers that only have peaks and no diminishing statlines as they age to be on a level playing field), 1924-1928 Fredrickson rockets up to first (!) in AST% and seventh in PTS%.

Zetterberg and Fredrickson are going to be a potent offensive duo with Heatley's big body creating space for them. Much like Windsor's top line, they seem to find another level when the lights shine the brightest.

I have considerably more to say on the subject, but I don't think I'll have the time until sometime tomorrow. So I'll have to leave it here for now.

 

[rmartin65]

Bowie simply crushed his era like no one else in hockey history, sans Gretzky. No one else was as consistently dominant over the years you mention which is 2+ decades long.

Respectfully, I still don't think my point is coming across- he didn't crush his era (offensively) like no one else in hockey history, sans Gretzky, he crushed his league.

Bowie's era saw what was probably the least amount of talent consolidation in hockey history. To reiterate, it wasn't a weak era for talent, but the individual leagues weren't particularly strong. I mean, let's take 1905 for example; the 4 best players in the world were (probably) Russell Bowie (CAHL), Frank McGee (FAHL), Tommy Phillips (MHL), and Hod Stuart (IPHL). Does Bowie still lead a consolidated league in scoring? For my money, probably. But does he have a Vs2 of 130 (using the stats I compiled from the papers)? Almost certainly not.

This is the kind of thing I think we need to be aware of when looking at this era.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Defensemen - Slight Advantage Three Rivers

Doug Harvey - Guy Lapointe
Harvey Pulford (A) - Lester Patrick (C)
Mike Grant - Jack Marshall
Si Griffis

vs

Mark Howe - Earl Seibert (A)
Ryan Suter - Brent Burns
Doug Mohns - Bob Goldham
Sandis Ozolinsh

I have this as a clean sweep for Three Rivers across 3 pairings.

With that being said, the gap between our 2nd and 3rd pairings is small so I ultimately settled on this being a slight advantage for the Pittsburgh based franchise.

1st Pairing - Harvey-Lapointe vs Howe-Seibert - Slight Advantage Three Rivers

I don't need to expand much on Harvey's counting stats, or awards. That's well documented and I think most people rank Harvey as a top 10ish player all time.

What I'd like to highlight are peer reviews of Harvey. Not only quotes by teammates, but opponents, coaches, referees, writers, etc.

If ever there was a near letter perfect hockey player, Doug Harvey might just be that guy. I'm actually blown away by how many direct quotes there are speaking to the level of control Harvey exerted over a game. The calmness at which he played. The rarity of mistakes, being out of position, or being beat 1 on 1. And the sheer volume of people who placed him as the greatest defensemen ever, some putting him above even Orr.

We talk a lot about numbers and hardware, but contemporary praise is another beast all together and Harvey has absolutely no shortage of admirers.

This is the playoff scoring study overpass did, which includes the first wave of peer quotes seen below

Doug Harvey's playoff scoring

Doug Harvey's playoff scoring compared to his regular season scoring is consistent with a player who could play at a high level offensively, but only did so when his team needed it. During the 1956-1960 Montreal dynasty, Doug Harvey scored at a notably higher level in the playoffs than in the...

forums.hfboards.com

Red Storey, longtime NHL referee:

I have been involved in hockey for thirty years and with all sincerity, I must admit that Doug Harvey is the greatest defense player in the history of our national sport. I have seen Harvey play since he lined up with the Royal juniors, and I have always followed with interest his rise in hockey. He's a real general on the ice, a very cunning player, who surely merits a place in the pantheon of hockey immortals. I don't believe I could live long enough to see another rearguard of Doug Harvey's caliber.

Frank Carlin, general manager of the Montreal Royal:

I have watched many good defense players in my time, but Harvey is without doubt the best of all. He's a complete player, an excellent skater, an ace at holding an opponent in check, briefly, a player who has a style all to himself. Harvey is alone in his class and I don't exaggerate when I say he is better than Eddie Shore.

Jimmy Orlando, former Detroit defenseman:

Doug Harvey is definitely the best defense player to wear the colours of a National Hockey League club in the last ten years. He possesses a remarkable "sang-froid", makes wonderful plays for his teammates, and is a real rock of Gibraltar on the blueline. Harvey is a great leader.

Joe Belanger, secretary-treasurer of Canadian Athletic promotion:

Doug Harvey is by a thousand yards the best defense player in the history of the Canadiens hockey club. He's a very great star and you would have to wait many years before finding another rear-guard of his caliber. He's a very intelligent athlete and I must confess that we should elect him into the Hall of Fame now.

Sylvio Mantha, former Montreal defenseman:

There is no doubt that Doug Harvey is the best defense player to line up in the National Hockey League in the last ten years. Offensively and defensively, he has no equal. Harvey is very skillful. He is cunning at anticipating the game. He's a gentleman, a player who knows how to use all legal means to win a game. He's a great asset to hockey in general.

Georges Mantha, former Montreal player:

Doug Harvey is definitely the Eddie Shore of his time. Shore was however more spectacular than the current ace of the Canadiens. Doug Harvey is a player more intelligent than Shore was, but the latter was much tougher. Harvey is a general of the game, one of the greatest defense players in the history of professional hockey.

Jean-Charles Pedneault, former player for the Banking League and with the Montreal Royals:

Doug Harvey is a very brilliant player who knows what to do when he has the puck. He facilitates the job of his forwards by his scientific passes. He's a player a club can put their trust in. He is undoubtedly the principal pillar of the Canadiens on the defense.

Gerard Dandurand, son of Leo Dandurand, former owner of Canadiens:

I have attended hockey games since 1921 and I consider Doug Harvey as a defense player superior to stars of other eras, including Eddie Shore. The latter had a lot of colour, but he made more errors than Doug Harvey. The veteran Canadiens player is extremely intelligent and is as cunning as possible. He's a natural athlete. Personally, Doug Harvey is the best defense player who's work I've seen, followed by Sprague Cleghorn and Eddie Shore.

Wildor Larochelle, former Canadiens player:

Doug Harvey is the best defense player, an athlete who belongs in the same class as Sylvio Mantha and Eddie Shore. It's very rare that Doug Harvey looks bad on any play. He is very intelligent and has all sorts of little tricks to stop an opponent. In the last ten years, no other player approaches him on defense, not even Red Kelly of the Detroit Red Wings

Newsy Lalonde:

I consider Doug Harvey as one of the greatest stars of professional hockey. He has no weaknesses as a player. He's a very elegant skater who rarely makes a false move. As a defenseman, he is complete in every way.

'I think almost every team had a tough fella you had to be careful of. Not necessarily for fighting, but for bodychecking. Pierre Pilote. Fernie Flaman. Leo Boivin. Bobby Baun. Doug Harvey in Montreal. - Andy Bathgate on the toughest competitor in his time

''He was great, always willing to help.'' - Maurice Richard

''The greatest defenceman who ever played the game.'' - Jean Beliveau

''He was cool and deliberate.'' - Milt Schmidt

''If the game was 8-2, Doug Harvey might have a goal and an assist. If the score was 3-2, he'd have 2 or 3 points.'' - Hal Laycoe

'He was so good that he played mind games with the opposition. If he had Orr's legs, he would of been in that class - he was anyway, but he couldn't accelerate like Orr. Doug was more like a Mack Truck.'' - Howie Meeker

''And of course Harvey, we always thought that without Harvey on that team we could beat Montreal because he really was controlling the puck back on that blueline. He'd pick it up and take his time, get it out, move it out, get the guy in the open and throw it to him and away they'd go. To me, he was one of the greatest defenceman to ever play.'' - Martin Pavelich

''He was the best defenceman of our day. I never played with him, so I never knew him personally, but he was well respected.'' - George Armstrong

''One of the greatest player in the history of the game.'' - Pat Burns

''Harvey did what was expected of him. He was nobody's fool. He was a smart player, someone tough who didn't mind mixing it up. We all knew we had to bring our best to have a chance of beating him.'' - Dick Duff

''No player put my heart in my mouth like as often as Doug, but I learned to swallow in silence. His style was casual, but it worked. He made few mistakes, and, ninety-nine percent of the time correctly anticipated the play or the pass.'' - Toe Blake

''He could have played center, he could have played left wing, he could have played goal. There was no part of the game he couldn't do.'' - Tom Johnson

''All I know is that the son of a gun came out of nowhere to become the biggest thorn in the side of the Leafs in our glory days. He was an early Bobby Orr, except he did it at semi-slow motion. You always knew what was coming - you could see it happening - but you couldn't do anything about it.'' - Howie Meeker, remembering how his teammate came to fear Harvey's ability to control a game

''Doug played defence in a rocking chair.'' - Toe Blake

"I would say Doug Harvey was tremendous. He was a great defensive and offensive player and he did everything with [ease]. He used to get the puck in front of the goaltender and Irvin would warn him that if he ever had the puck taken off his stick and it went in the net it will cost him $500. Dougie would irritate Irvin quite a bit [laughing] as he was standing there with the puck.'' - Elmer Lach, when asked which Hall of Famer he admired the most

''Doug Harvey was the greatest defenseman who ever played hockey, bar none. Usually, a defensemen specializes in one thing and builds a reputation around that, but Doug could do everything well. His style was casual, but it worked. He made few mistakes, and 99% of the time correctly anticipated the play or pass.'' - Dickie Moore

''It's like playing against (Wayne) Gretzky and (Bobby) Orr. It didn't matter what they did, they always beat you.'' - George Armstrong, comparing Doug Harvey to Gretzky and Orr

''No slight to Bobby Orr but Doug Harvey was the best defenseman ever to play the game.'' - Ted Lindsay

''As far as I'm concerned, Harvey's far and away the best defensemen ever." - Toe Blake

In the last installment of the top 100 project, I had Harvey as the greatest Habs player ever, ranked 6th (had Roy ranked 5th, but he played a large portion of his career with Colorado), 2 spots ahead of Beliveau in 8th. Nothing has changed in my estimation, and the deeper look into Harvey specifically only reinforces my position.

Earl Seibert is a perfectly solid #1 in a draft this size, but his standing in an all-time light, pales in comparison to Harvey. I had him ranked 51st all time and that's roughly about where he ends up on a lot of people's lists. You'll see about 10-12 defensemen in between Harvey and Seibert all time.

Seibert simply didn't control the game offensively, or defensively in the manner of Harvey.
Harvey, by a lot of the source material above, was the driving force and most important/influential player on the dominant Habs PP's. His playoff contributions and resume put him on the same tier as Beliveau as far as all-time great playoff performers go and while Beliveau is certainly more revered in Montreal, I'm not convinced he (or Richard) was a more integral part of the greatest dynasty in hockey history (50's Habs).

This is an extremely important beginning to a larger point.

Most of Windsor's playoff aces are contained within their top 6 F group. The entire 1st line. Zetterberg, to a lesser degree Fredrickson. I only see Lemaire standing out within the bottom 6 group of players.

Three Rivers spreads their playoff heroics out better, from the F group, to D, to Marty Brodeur. Taylor, Kucherov, Barry, Lemieux (and really the whole 4th line) give Three Rivers at least one playoff ringer on each F line.

There is no doubt that Windsor has a better collection of playoff F's.

But hockey isn't decided in one phase. Three Rivers was mindful to spread the wealth of experience and triumph, in crunch time, to other areas beyond F. Significantly so, I might add factoring in D, which we're talking about now, and G, which I'll get to tonight or tomorrow AM.

I hope I convinced the voters that the coaching match up favors Three Rivers. That's largely based on playoff accomplishments, best of 7, winner take all. Imlach simply got it done more often, and he largely built the teams he coached. I've pointed out, with evidence, that Imlach used assistants (coach in King Clancy, specifically) which paved the way for Bob Johnson to have a place, acting as the soother, in the same manner Clancy did.

Now you have a significantly more tested and proven defensive group led by Harvey and Lapointe.

12 Cup wins between them. Harvey played in 10 straight Cup finals, winning 6 between 1950-51 and 1959-60.

It doesn't end there.

Pulford and Patrick were mainstays in the Cup challenges between 1903 and 1909, the former being the captain of the famous Silver Seven dynasty in Ottawa and latter, winning back-to-back challenges with the Montreal Wanderers in 1906 and 1907, playing in 4 other finals beyond those 2.

Mike Grant, mentioned above, was captain of the Montreal Victorias dynasty in the 1890's. His team won or retained possession of the SC, 5 times between 1895 and 1899. It's widely accepted he was the best player on most of those teams.

And last but not least, Jack Marshall, won 5 Cup challenges during his career. His ability to play both D and C, gives us the flexibility to move he and Cyclone Taylor around in a pinch. He'd be familiar with Mike Grant and ties a bow on the strongest and most accomplished defensive corps in the draft IMO.

If Mark Howe was better than Lapointe, it wasn't by much and considering the rather large difference in playoff resumes (you'll see below), I'm comfortably calling it a wash, especially come SCF time.

Norris:
Lapointe - 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5
Howe - 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 10

AS:
Lapointe - 1, 2, 2, 2, 6, 7
Howe - 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 7, 7

Lapointe entered the league a few years after Bobby Orr. He had peer comp from a prime Orr, Potvin, Larry Robinson, Brad Park, Bjore Salming, Serge Savard, among others. This group surely is on par with what Howe went up against in the 80's, specifically the mid to latter portions of the decade when Howe was at his peak.

Lapointe played significantly on both ST units. I highlighted last series, just how much Bowman relied on Lapointe for both the PP And PK. He was a key figure on all 6 Cup teams he played on, as you'll see below.

Howe played in 2 SCF's and 1 CF.

1985 - SCF - Flyers are smoked 4-1 by Edmonton. Howe scores 2 points in 5 games and is a -1. Gretzky and Coffey each scored 11 points in 5 games.

1987 - SCF - Flyers take Edmonton to 7 games but Howe is subpar, scoring just 1 point in 7 games, while registering a -4 rating. Gretzky scored 11 points.

1989 - CF - Flyers lose 4-2. Howe scores 0 points in 6 games and is a +1.

In the deepest depths of the playoffs (Howe's teams made it out the 1st round those 3 times above), he scored 3 points in 18 games and was a -4.

Lapointe played in 5 SCF and 2 CF

1971 - SCF - Habs win Cup 4-3 over Chicago. Lapointe scores 3 points in 7 games and is even. He ties for team lead in points among D in series.

1973 - SCF - Habs win Cup 4-2 over Chicago. Lapointe scores 4 points in 6 games and is a robust +8, 2nd on the team. His 4 points are most among D.

1975 - CF - Habs shocked by Buffalo in 6 games. However, Lapointe is dominant, scoring 7 points in those 6 games, registering a +2. No other D scored more than 3 points. Robinson/Savard were abused in this series.

1976 - SCF - Habs sweep the Flyers, though Lapointe isn't anything to write home about, scoring 1 goal and ending up even. Bouchard and Robinson scored more.

1977 - SCF - Habs again sweep, this time Boston. Lapointe back to his dominant ways, registering 4 points in 4 games, and +5. He once again, scores the most points among D and his +5 tied Guy Lafleuer for best on team.

1978 - SCF - Habs win Cup 4-2, though it's finally the Robinson/Savard show, the former leading the team with 6 points and Savard 3. Lapointe had 2 in the 6 games and was a +1.

1979 - CF - Habs win 4-3 vs Boston. Lapointe would miss game 7 (and subsequently the Cup finals to follow) but once again, we see a stellar performance from Lapointe, scoring 5 points in 6 games and ending up a +4. Robinson had 6 points and was also a +4.

Add that all up:

7 series (6 SCF wins, 1 loss in CF)
39 games
26 points
+20

If you take out 1971 (since neither Savard or Robinson played that year)?

32 games
23 points
+20

Out of curiosity, let's put those figures up next to the other 2 members of the big 3.

Robinson:
1973 - 2 points - 6 games - +1
1975 - 3 points - 6 games - -2
1976 - 2 points - 4 games - +1
1977 - 3 points - 4 games - +3
1978 - 6 points - 6 games - +4
1979 - 6 points - 7 games - +4

6 series (5 SCF wins - 1 loss in CF)
33 games
22 points
+11

Savard:
1973 - 1 point - 6 games - even
1975 - 3 points - 6 games - -2
1976 - 0 points - 4 games - +4
1977 - 2 points - 4 games - +2
1978 - 3 points - 6 games - +5
1979 - 3 points - 7 games - +1

6 series (5 SCF wins - 1 loss in CF)
33 games
12 points
+10

*Robinson and Savard played in 6 of the 7 series w/Lapointe. Robinson hadn't yet cracked the NHL in 1971 and Savard was out w/a broken leg.

I think there was a reason why Bowman had Lapointe on the ice so much in the deepest parts of the tournament (Conference Finals and SCFs). He flat out showed up time and time again. His usage, as I showed in the last series, was higher than both Robinson and Savard due to the large chunk of time he spent on both ST units, while equaling his teammates at ES.

Even if you think Howe is the better player in an overall sense, I don't see a path towards there being any real gap, especially considering this is a best of 7 match up, Cup final.

2nd pairing - Pulford-Patrick vs Suter-Burns - Slight Advantage Three Rivers

I'm simply not as big a fan of Windsor's 2nd pairing as some might be. Regardless, I don't see Suter or Burns quote on Patrick or Pulford's level.

Suter had a short period of time where he was one of the 3-5 best Dmen in the sport (roughly 2012-14), but never really defined himself as the best. I certainly don't think that matches Lester Patrick or Harvey Pulford's reputation.

Norris record of 2, 4, 5, 8, 8, 9
AS record of 1, 5, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10

And my goodness, does his playoff record look abysmal.

44 points in 133 games and a -28 to cap it off.

10 of the 15 playoffs he's been a negative rated player. He never got out of the 2nd round in Nashville or Minnesota. Even the past 2 years, he's been nothing more than a depth veteran presence on Conference finalists Dallas, w/ 10 points in 38 games, -2.

Brent Burns peaked a bit higher, winning a Norris in 2017 (and finishing 4th in Hart voting), while being a finalist 2 other times (2016 and 2019). Beyond that though? Not a whole lot to write home about. Norris finishes of 8, 10, and 12.

He was a 3 time AS (1, 1, 2) but fades quickly after that, his next best finish being 8th and 10th (twice).

Norris record of 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 12.
AS record of 1, 1, 2, 8, 10, 10, 12

He did have a Smythe worthy run in 2016 (SCF loss to Pitt) and another good jaunt in 2019. But beyond that, nothing to really get excited about.

Do either of those resumes look better than Patrick's below? I don't think so. Maybe you can get Burns there based on peak but Patrick also peaked as one of the best defensemen in the world and certainly held better longevity than Burns, as a top tier defender.

Stanley Cup Champion (1906, 1907)
Stanley Cup Finalist (1904, 1908, 1914, 1918, 1926)
First All-Star Team (1907) *ECAHA*
First All-Star Team (1913, 1915, 1916, 1917) *PCHA - DEFENSE*
Second Team All-Star (1918, 1920) *PCHA - DEFENSE*
Norris Trophy (1915) *PCHA - DEFENSE*
Team Captain (1907)
Stanley Cup Game Winning Goal (1906)
Canada Sports Hall of Fame (1975)
Inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame (1947)

Pacific Coast Hockey Association [1911-1922] *DEFENSE*
Top-10 Scoring (5th, 5th, 9th, 10th)
Top-10 Goalscoring (2nd, 7th, 10th, 10th)
Top-10 Assist (3rd, 5th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 9th)
Top-10 Penalty Minutes (6th, 8th, 9th)
Top-10 Scoring Among defenseman (1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 6th)
Top-10 Goalscoring among defenseman (1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th)
Top-10 Assist among defenseman (1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th)
Top-10 Penalty Minutes among defenseman (1st, 2nd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 9th)
Top-10 Playoff Scoring (1st, 1st, 6th)
Top-10 Playoff Goalscoring (1st, 1st)
Top-10 Playoff Assist (3rd)
Top-10 Playoff Scoring Among defenseman (1st, 1st, 2nd)
Top-10 Playoff Goalscoring among defenseman (1st, 1st)
Top-10 Playoff Assist among defenseman (1st)

Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 5

Procedure You will be presented with ~15 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to @seventieslord & @rmartin65 Use the same...

forums.hfboards.com

If you want a truly in depth look at Pulford and his reputation, click on the link just above this sentence.

He was the captain, for the full duration of the 2nd great dynasty in hockey history, with the Ottawa Senators winning 4 consecutive Cup challenges from 1903-1906.

His defensive reputation was sterling and towards the end of his career, became an effective rushing Dman. His checking struck fear into every opposing player. As far as defensive stoppers go on the blue line, I think Pulford easily takes the cake in an all time light, at least until Eddie Gerard was leading another Ottawa dynasty in the late 1910's/early 1920's.

It's more difficult to cross reference players from this era to those still playing today but Patrick and Pulford were both among the best D of their time, for a long period of time, in both cases.

As far as fit goes, I think both pairings work well from a stylistic standpoint, though Pulford-Patrick is a better defensive duo and certainly more accomplished, by a lot, in the playoffs, again a regular theme when looking at all 3 pairings.

I certainly don't think there is any significant gap between the 2nd pairings, it's hard to bet against Pulford-Patrick giving you more positive output given what's at stake and their experience under the brightest of lights.

3rd Pairing - Grant-Marshall vs Mohns-Goldham - Slight Advantage Three Rivers

Mike Grant was a certified superstar, captain of the first great hockey dynasty (1890's) and renowned for his offensive rushing and skating abilities. I don't think he was quite as consistent as his early era counterparts and teammates (Patrick and Pulford), but it's without dispute that he was very highly regarded and drew large crowds, while leading numerous teams, as captain, to titles.

I think he's easily the best player out of the 4, and coupled with a rugged, defensive minded, and equally battled tested Jack Marshall, gives Three Rivers another edge, this time on the bottom pairing.

Neither Mohns or Goldham were considered superstars, let alone stars. There is a singular 2nd team AS nod between the 2 of them, though Goldham was a key depth piece on the Detroit title teams of the 50's but he generally gets over drafted most years. This is a perfectly acceptable bottom duo in a draft of this size, but it doesn't have a Mike Grant level player.

Here are some quotes about Grant's abilities and reputation as a mega star:

Legends of Hockey:

Mike Grant was the premier defensive specialist of 1890s ice hockey, playing the ancient position of cover-point primarily for the Montreal Victorias of the Amateur Hockey Association of Canada and the Canadian Amateur Hockey League.

A very strong case can be made that Mike Grant was hockey's first true star; he was the first player to actually draw crowds that would sell out ice rinks all over Eastern Canada. He was also the first hockey player that newspaper reporters consistently reported on which helped popularize the game via the press.

Grant, already an accomplished speed-skating champion, played his first hockey with the Young Crystals, the junior team to the Montreal Crystals, and was named Captain within a year. He led the Young Crystals to the championship and then its intermediate squad to two more titles. The Montreal Victorias took note of this rising young star and signed him to a contract in 1893. In his third season with the Victorias, Grant captained his team to the first of four consecutive Stanley Cup championships.

He was a tremendous leader of men, played a fine brand of defensive hockey, was most likely the quickest skater in the game, and he was the finest puck-rusher of early hockey by practically all accounts. In fact, it may have been Grant who influenced later puck-rushers like Art Ross and Lester Patrick to master this art. It is safe to assume that if a Norris Trophy was awarded back in Grant's era he would have earned perhaps four or five as he was the premier dominant defensive player of his time. Similarly, it could be easily argued that Grant would have won at least one Hart Trophy and maybe even a Conn Smythe Trophy had there been such awards.

Eastern Canada probably does not contain a better hockey player than Captain Michael Grant. Captain Grant was born in 1874, stands 5 ft. 10 in. in height, and tips the scales at 170

Captain Grant is undoubtedly a tower of strength to his team. His keener critics said that last year was an "off" year with him, but, whether that be so or not his work this season has been fully up to his old standard. He has body enough and pluck enough to stop any rush and is himself quick to take the aggressive when the occasion offers. As a captain he has few superiors for he is cool, even to a fault, and knowing his men thoroughly he is well aware of their capabilities at all times

Talking about his highly regarded leadership.

Coming to personal mention, the name of Captain Mike Grant naturally suggests itself first. He has the rare qualities to make him at once a good player and a good captain. With a temper absolutely above the petty trivialities incidental to hockey, with a frame proof to the assault of the swiftest forward, with a judgment never more sure than when required on the instant and possessing as he did the perfect confidence of his team, Captain Grant proved himself a captain among captains.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...Q0uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UTkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1680,6299396

Even in 1905, Grant was still considered a superstar. Really neat piece giving an insight to how Grant viewed defensive work, tactically speaking.

"Mike Grant, the best known hockey player in Canada, captain for years of the erstwhile invincible Victorias, in speaking of general defense work says:"

There you have it.

Three Rivers, to me, is ahead across the board, not only in terms of talent and regular season bullet points, but playoff acclaim, and that's huge given we're in a Cup final.

You can clearly see the dominance of Harvey, the absolute brilliance of Lapointe in Conference Finals and SCF's. Patrick and Pulford went through the ringer and came out on top, as champions, numerous times. Same story with Grant and Marshall.

You have a wealth of leadership in this group, an unnatural calm, borne out of having such extensive big game experiences. I surely don't see that with players like Howe and Suter in the top 4.

Whatever advantage Windsor has among the F group (top 6 specifically) is erased when comparing the 12 men above and I think the series ultimately tilts our way when we get to G and special teams, analysis which I hope to have complete sometime tomorrow.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I am as of now an undecided voter, and I have one question apiece that I'd like to hear more about.

For @ImporterExporter - Part of your draft strategy was taking a depth defenseman who can slot in as a depth C (in this case, Jack Marshall) so that Taylor can be moved back to D in certain situations. I think that may be a prudent strategy in this matchup for two reasons: one, Marshall moved to defense later in his career and did well enough at the position, but I'm unsure if he belongs on an ATD defense corps and thus is more playable as a depth C, and two, I still do think the Trois Rivieres forwards tend toward being unidimensional... extremely highly-skilled but soft-ish and without much two-way play, on an ATD scale at least. The jack-of-all-trades Marshall would at least help out a little bit in that regard, and adding Taylor adds a ton of speed and 'eagerness to rush' to a blueline that maybe could use a little more of that. So my question is, would you opt for this strategy in this series, and if so, how would you deploy it?

For @spitsfan24 - I mentioned that the Trois Rivieres forwards, to me, look a bit unidimensional. That's more of a factor at even strength and less of a problem on the powerplay, where their first unit looks absolutely dynamite. Windsor's top unit PK, on the other hand, leaves me wanting. I don't know if either Damphousse or Seibert are first-unit guys. Even Zetterberg wasn't used on the top unit in those back to back Finals runs. It looks like a mismatch to me, so what's the plan on the penalty kill?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Goaltenders - Brodeur/LeSueuer vs Belfour/Giacomin - Slight Advantage Three Rivers

With all due respect to The Eagle, a player I really liked as a kid, young adult, and still probably rate higher than most....is 2-3 tiers below Brodeur on an all-time scale IMHO. I'm erring on the side of conservatism in calling this a slight advantage because I think it's closer to a moderate one and I'll explain why, in detail.

I had Brodeur 20th in the top 100 project a half decade ago, which was the highest spot for Marty in the study IIRC. He ended up 30th, barely behind Hall, and 11 spots behind Plante, who I ranked 17th. I had Belfour 87th. He ended up 85th, with 9 goalies separating them.

My reasoning for putting him and Plante on their own tier is due to a number of factors.

One of the most impressive gems on his resume is that his ability as a skater, puck handler, and passer, was so good, the league changed the rules on where goalies can play the puck.

We talk about stats, and awards, and contemporary praise often.

There aren't many players who can say they've forced (or were hugely influential) the league into altering what's legal and what isn't.

This is a huge point in this series and has been all playoffs.

Brodeur's ability to play the puck, as a G, is more or less the Harvey's ability to play the puck as Dman. Guy Lapointe was stellar at this. So was Lester Patrick, and Mike Grant. Even Pulford was a noted puck carrier for the latter 3rd of his career.

Defending+transition isn't just a F's job. It most often begins in your own zone, sprung by the D (blocking shots, puck retrieval, etc) or G (saves, puck retrieval on dump ins, awareness+passing, etc), looking to move the puck up to capable F's in the neutral zone, and away you go.

You then assess Three Rivers skating and puck handling abilities down the middle (Taylor, Bowie, not so much speed, but elite puck skills absolutely, Barry, Mackell), coupled with smooth operators like Schriner and Kucherov. Hell, even Bobby Bauer carried the puck a lot on the Kraut line.

As much as one can pump up Harvey in this area, Brodeur deserves every bit as much praise for his generalship from the net.

Here, seventieslord posted an extremely detailed study of Brodeur's save %, and how to adjust it based on numerous facors.

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

The offensive players are usually better players than the checkers, so Forsberg having the better numbers just means he was usually playing against worse players. Or, Forsberg was just the better player.

forums.hfboards.com

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

The offensive players are usually better players than the checkers, so Forsberg having the better numbers just means he was usually playing against worse players. Or, Forsberg was just the better player.

forums.hfboards.com

Brodeur's stamina and longevity was unparalleled post 06 era. He played 70 or more games in a single season, 12 times in his career. Roy AND Hasek combined to do that ONCE. Belfour did it 3 times.

Martin Brodeur - NHL All Time Records Held

Minutes Played in a Single Season - 4,697 - 2006-07
Most Wins in a Single Season- 48 - 2006-07 (tied with Holtby 2015-16)
Most 30 Win Seasons - 14
Most consecutive 35-win seasons (11)
Most 40 Win Seasons - 8 - 1997-98, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08,2009-2010
Most Consecutive 40 Win Seasons - 3 - 2005-06 through 2007-08
Most All-Time OT Wins - 52
Most All-Time Shootout Wins - 26
Most Shootout Shots Against in a Single Seasons - 60 - 2006-07
Most All-Time Shootout Shots Against - 141
Most Consecutive Post-Season Starts - 158
Best Post-Season Goals-Against Average All-Time - 1.96
Most Shutouts in a Post-Season Series - 3 (tie), 2003 Stanley Cup Finals vs. Anaheim
Most shutouts in a Post Season (7, in 2002-03)
Most Combined Shutouts (Regular & Post-Season) - 112, 22
Only NHL goaltender to score a game-winning goal
One of only two NHL goalies to score a goal in both the regular season and the playoffs
First goaltender in history to have 3 shutouts in 2 different playoff series. (1995 against Boston Bruins, 2003 against Anaheim Ducks)
Most Wins All Time - 691
Most Losses All Time - 397
Most Regular Season Shutouts - 125
Mots Playoff Shutouts - 24
Most Games Played All Time by a Goaltender -1266
Most Minutes All Time - 74,439

Consider the rest of resume:

• 4 time Vezina winner with 5 other finalist nods.
• 11 times he was a top 12 Hart vote getter including a 3 time finalist.
• From age 21 to age 37 he was a top 8 in Norris voting every year but 1, including those 4 wins above
• He was superb on all 3 Cup winners in NJ and even pushing 40 years old in a Cup finals run (loss to LA) put up respectable numbers.

How about Hart Voting, top 5 finishes?

Brodeur had 7 (3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5)
Roy - 5
Hasek - 5
Hall - 5
Sawchuk - 4
Plante - 2
Belfour - 1 (3rd in 90-91)

AS Voting:

Brodeur - 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 6, 6, 8
Belfour - 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8

Vezina Voting:

Brodeur - 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8
Belfour - 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 7, 7, 7

These links will give you a solid idea of the value of Brodeur as a playoff goalie:

Three stars selections (playoffs, 1992-2022)

In another recent thread, I made an offhand comment about "three stars" selections from playoff games. Someone (wisely) asked @pnep if he had any data about this and, not surprisingly, he did. I've taken a quick look at the file he posted. I figured this was interesting enough to warrant a...

forums.hfboards.com

Goalies: Adjusted Playoff Save Percentage (1984-2022)

I don’t think that anybody has done a comprehensive study about playoff save percentage. I thought it was an important enough topic to spend a couple of hours analyzing the data. To adjust playoff save percentage, two adjustments are required. First, saves are normalized to a 90.5% save...

forums.hfboards.com

HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

The following is the final list of the top Stanley Cup playoff performers as determined by the History of Hockey community. Report any errors to quoipourquoi. Top Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All-Time Pos. Born Nationality First Playoff Last Playoff St. Cups OT P/W 1 Wayne Gretzky C1...

forums.hfboards.com

Here, Batis examines best on best international results including Brodeur who was stellar:

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 5

I'm not entirely sure Mikita was the 2nd best player on the Blackhawks. Glenn Hall definitely has a case there. For example, the THN Top 100 rated the two of them back to back - Hall 16th, Mikita 17th: List of 100 greatest NHL players by The Hockey News - Simple English Wikipedia, the free...

forums.hfboards.com

Belfour is pretty close to being blown away as far as regular season resume's go. I certainly think the gap is much smaller when it comes to the playoffs, but Brodeur was probably robbed of the Smythe in 95 and was certainly in the conversation in 2003, another Cup victory. The 3rd Cup win in 2000, he put up a .939 SV% over 6 games (9 goals against). He was fantastic in a ECF loss in 1994 against the Rangers (7 games). Even pushing 40 years old, he managed to backstop the Devils to a SCF loss against LA.

Cool playoff stat?

Brodeur's 13 points (1G/12A) in the playoffs rank 2nd to only Grant Fuhr (14) though Brodeur didn't play in the 80's and w/Gretzky/Messier/Coffey.

Belfour had 1 assist in 13 years.

Again, I don't think Belfour gives up much ground as a playoff performer. Brodeur is ahead because he starred on more Cup winners (good to elite on those) and was routinely selected over Belfour to represent Team Canada in the 90's and 2000's, w/Brodeur posting very strong knockout game #'s (best on best tournaments) as shown earlier.

At the end of the day though, we factor in the entire package, and Brodeur simply has a more robust resume, and these are 2 players whose careers overlapped a good bit.

Not that the backups will likely see a minute of action, but I think they're pretty close all time. LeSueur seems to be the pick for most people, as best goalie in the world, prior to Vezina and Benedict/Lehman getting settled as stars in the early to mid, 1910's. He was on multiple Cup winners in Ottawa. Giacomin's resume is basically 1967-1971, and regular season heavy with 5 AS nods and a Hart runner up in 67. There is really nothing to get excited about as far as the playoffs go. They both ranked very closely on the top 40 project a decade back and there doesn't seem to be anything to change that today.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I am as of now an undecided voter, and I have one question apiece that I'd like to hear more about.

For @ImporterExporter - Part of your draft strategy was taking a depth defenseman who can slot in as a depth C (in this case, Jack Marshall) so that Taylor can be moved back to D in certain situations. I think that may be a prudent strategy in this matchup for two reasons: one, Marshall moved to defense later in his career and did well enough at the position, but I'm unsure if he belongs on an ATD defense corps and thus is more playable as a depth C, and two, I still do think the Trois Rivieres forwards tend toward being unidimensional... extremely highly-skilled but soft-ish and without much two-way play, on an ATD scale at least. The jack-of-all-trades Marshall would at least help out a little bit in that regard, and adding Taylor adds a ton of speed and 'eagerness to rush' to a blueline that maybe could use a little more of that. So my question is, would you opt for this strategy in this series, and if so, how would you deploy it?

For @spitsfan24 - I mentioned that the Trois Rivieres forwards, to me, look a bit unidimensional. That's more of a factor at even strength and less of a problem on the powerplay, where their first unit looks absolutely dynamite. Windsor's top unit PK, on the other hand, leaves me wanting. I don't know if either Damphousse or Seibert are first-unit guys. Even Zetterberg wasn't used on the top unit in those back-to-back Finals runs. It looks like a mismatch to me, so what's the plan on the penalty kill?

Great questions Dr!

Answering the ones aimed at our squad:

1. I want to push back against the notion of our F group being "softish and unidimensional".

I'm not going to say our F group (the top 6) is full of truculence and verified checkers, but I do disagree that we're in any real trouble physically.

Being soft needs to be verified with quotes and sources for players of old. Active players, or those who did play recently enough, would need to be held to the same standard (eye test/or written accounts).

Schriner was a big, smooth operator, and while he won't be a difference maker in the fore-back checking department, there is nothing to suggest that he was soft or unable to play in any condition. He was traded for by Toronto and played (won a pair of Cups) under a defensive minded, taskmaster in Hap Day.

Taylor wasn't close to being soft or a question mark defensively. RB, and others have done a magnificent job at really digging up as much info as possible on him (especially his time in the PCHA) and I've studied him extensively from his time in Ottawa under Pete Green. He was a mostly clean player in that he didn't take a ton of penalties, but didn't mind mixing things up, even getting into some scraps and he was ruled off numerous times for roughing/fighting. His defensive value has always been underrated because many equate high flying offensive players of old with a lack of defined defensive game.

Our very own Lester Patrick had this to say about Taylor:

He was as near perfection as we shall probably ever see. He had the speed of Morenz, the grade of Bun Cook, the poke check of Frank Boucher, the shot of Tom Phillips.

From an East vs West All-Star game, when Taylor was still in the East:

The story of the game is more fully told in my earlier book, "Cyclone Taylor: A Hockey Legend", so suffice to say here that Taylor came out just like his nickname and all but blew the West All-Stars off the ice with his blinding speed and hell-for-leather aggressiveness. The arena was in an uproar as he broke up a rush, stole the puck, and then split the defense before slipping a silk-slick pass to Art Ross for the go-ahead goal. The fans were on their feet minutes later when Taylor repeated the maneuver, this time setting up Jack Darragh for the score. He got a two-minute ovation for that little gambit.

Frank Patrick, who had been beaten badly in the second rush, must have had mixed emotions.

According to Frank Patrick, Cyclone Taylor's style of play inspired them to allow forward passing in the neutral zone, the first-time forward passing was ever allowed in any way in any professional hockey league:

Of Taylor himself, Frank has written: "Taylor was the ultimate hockey player. There'll never be another like him. He was blessed with the complete skills, quite apart from a unique excitement he generated every time he stepped onto the ice. I watched him very closely, and some of our ideas, such as creating the two blue lines to open up the center-ice area for passing, were inspired by his marvelous style.

Taylor, who was on the line the night the team was beaten in Quebec (TDMM - I assume this means at forward), was in Moore's position at cover point, increasing the efficiency of the defence about 50 percent. He was ruled off 4 times in the game, twice for heavy bodychecking and twice for slashing Wanderer forwards over the arms. His play, while on the rough side, was very effective; he was a hard man to get by and towards the end he stirred up the crowd by lightning rushes from end to end of the rink. He scored Ottawa's sixth and seventh goal on such dashes and was also responsible for the twelth, although Phillips landed the disc in the twine.

With Taylor off, the Wanderer forwards found it easier to work in on the Otttawa defence...

Taylor made it 11 to 1 on an end to end run and a pretty shot. Taylor immediately after the face repeated the run and Phillips scored from the rebound of Taylor's shot.

Taylor brought the crowd to their feet by stealing the disc from Hooper at the Ottawa end and going through the whole Wanderer team for Ottawa's sixth goal. Taylor went in and out through Glass and Ross and taking his time picked out the open corner of the net.

Taylor at times held the puck for several minutes towards the end of the game, skating all over the ice with the Ottawas in pursuit. He finally collided with Darragh and was knocked out. After a five-minute rest Taylor jumped back and again began to play rings around his former teammates. The Ottawas handed out stiff punishment, but Taylor was far too fast for them.

"Cyclone" Taylor, the star center of the Vancouver club of the Pacific Coast Hockey association, has been voted the all-around individual championship of the PCHA, for the 1917-18 season, according to an announcement by Frank Patrick, president of the organization.

The official scorers of Seattle, Vancouver and Portland voted on the most valuable player in the league and Taylor was the unanimous choice. "Cyclone" is far ahead of his nearest rival in scoring honors and will probably maintain an edge through the final series next week.

Taylor's defensive play was also exceptionally strong. Last season Frank Foyston of the Seattle club was voted the most valuable individual in the league. Another important point in Taylor's favor was the fact that not once during the season was the star sent from the ice for violation of rules.

11.1.1913 - Ottawa Citizen:

Taylor was always in the limelight, and his clashes with Johnson, the star defenseman of the cup holders, were one of the most interesting features of the evening.

The [unreadable] an attack of appendicitis and under the care of a physician earlier in the evening, Taylor went on the ice and played one of his spectacular games, although the "Cyclone" was not taking any great chances in view of his condition. His skating and stickhandling, in fact, all-around playing, has become a feature in every match in which he participates.

Bernie Morris was a quite physical and scrappy player. That was highlighted from my bio this year. I think his play style mirrors someone like Theo Fleury (similar size, similar offensive profile, and very similar things written about their physical and defensive reputations). I think he's got the ability to not only be the checker of the line based on what I unearthed but does it without sacrificing significant offense as Morris put up very good #'s as both a C and RW.

You can see that bio here:

ATD 2024 Bio Thread

Post them below

forums.hfboards.com

I think our top line, is actually quite solid in terms of checking back with 2 players who strike me as plusses based on numerous firsthand accounts. Taylor and Morris specifically, played in a rough era, and held up well.

Mike Bossy wasn't physical and gives you passable back checking but nothing more. Beliveau is no better defensively than Taylor. There just isn't a lot of information on his defensive abilities. I'm fine giving him a soft plus, but Blake is that lines only real difference maker as a checker.

Russell Bowie was described as a scrappy player but very little is known about how good he was defensively. There isn't enough in either direction to make a case definitively, so I've long labeled him as passable as a back checker. Basically average. He certainly seems to have handled physicality well, given the time period he played in was known for heavy checking and unusual violence, and his continued dominance year over year is obviously impressive.

Paul Thompson's most recent bio in 2021 gives you a decent glimpse on his all-around ability. Again, I'm not going crazy and calling him a plus defensively or physically speaking but there is enough written to know for certain, neither area was a weakness.

Here is bio you can read:

https://forums.hfboards.com/threads/atd2021-bio-thread.2798861/post-175718697

Paul Thompson was a skillful left-winger during his 13 years in the NHL beginning in 1926-27. He was a well-rounded player who could check as well as contribute on offense in a career that yielded three Stanley Cups. The slick forward was also the younger brother of star netminder Tiny Thompson.

He was a solid role player for five years and helped the club win its first Stanley Cup in 1928. In October 1931, he was traded to the Chicago Black Hawks for Art Somers and Vic Desjardins.

Thompson hit the 20-goal mark twice during his eight years with the Hawks. In 1933-34, he formed an effective line with Doc Romnes and Mush March when Chicago won its first Stanley Cup. Four years later, he scored a personal-best 22 goals and notched four post-season markers to help the club win its second Cup of the decade. He retired during the 1938-39 season to coach the Hawks for the last 27 games of the schedule.

Thompson scored 20 goals twice in Chicago and he scored 15 or more goals in 7 out of his 8 season with the Blackhawks. Thompson was a 2-time all-star but his biggest contribution during his playing days was being on both the 34 and 38 Stanley Cup winners in Chicago. Thompson was an all around good player that didn't shy away from any aspect of the game. He played physical, played in front of the net, and still had an excellent shot.

Kucherov is no worse in the physicality or checking department than Bossy and his sterling playoff resume (not to ignore the strong regular season #'s and awards he has as well) gives Johnny and I a good feeling about him in this setting, especially with a goal scoring and stickhandling expert at C.

I won't deny that our 2nd line is slanted offensively (one that should be considered quite dangerous given the players). It's not a trio that is going to impose their will physically speaking but none of them are soft, by any means, and Thompson does bring some semblance of physicality and checking.

But again, there's nothing to suggest those players would succumb under a strenuous game flow. Kucherov won back-to-back titles, playing at a Smythe level both times. Bowie was dominant for longer than anyone in his day. And I highlighted Thompson a bit just above.

And they're also supported by a quite physical defensive corps, led by arguably the best defensive player ever in Harvey.

As for the rest of the bottom 6, I see 4 strong defensive players/checkers in Leswick, Bourne, Mackell, and Lemieux. Interestingly enough they're also all plusses IMO (to varying degrees) as playoff performers.

Then you have Barry.

Not only was Barry arguably the best playoff performer of the 1930's, he was cited as being more than just an offensive #. It's not moving the needle past him being passable as a defensive player or some sort of physical dominator, but there really aren't any sources to make him out to be a negative impact (not that you're saying such).

There are numerous other remarkable players today. Marty Barry isn't far removed from the front rank. Indeed many competent critics rate the Detroit center smack up there.
Barry, big and strong and a hard worker, is as fine a playmaker as he is a defensive player. He has played left wing during the greater part of his career, but is the clever, snappy type of center who feeds his wings exceptionally well.

Marty Barry, Larry Aurie, and Herb Lewis give the Red Wings one of the best forward lines in the game. It is not only a high scoring array, but one of the finest defensive combinations.

[Barry] also played in 500 games over 10 years without missing one, which earned him the nickname the Iron Horse of major league hockey.
He nearly missed a game when his wife suffered problems before their first baby was born. However, she recovered soon enough so that he could get to the game on time.

"Like the great Black Knight of the Tiger infield, Marty Berry possesses that faculty of mechanical perfection. He sweeps the ice with such smooth, rhythmic strides his play seems effortless. He is called hockey's greatest passer."

Marty Barry, subjected to more bumping than he had received in any game, showed he could take it.

Lastly, I don't think anyone would call the 4th line (Bourne-Mackell-Lemieux) soft. It's filled with good to great checkers, an all-time pest, elite skating from 2 of the spots and a wealth of playoff bullet points, something you don't often see on a depth line. They'll do a bang-up job at the rougher parts, while also giving Three Rivers 3 players who might just be a hero at some point during the series.

2. I don't really believe there is a need to move Taylor at this point. The fit at C, with Imlach is strong and a shake up now risks damaging chemistry built through the gauntlet.

There is a lot of positional versatility with Three Rivers.

Taylor can play C or D
Morris can play RW or C
Leswick was adept at playing both wings
Bourne played everywhere on the F line
Harvey played both sides equally well
Patrick played F for the first 5/6 years of his career
And of course, Marshall played significant time at F and D.
Spare Jack Adams played C or LW

If anything, I think you could see in game adjustments. where Taylor takes a few shifts on D and Marshall moves up into a checking role at F, just to throw a different look at Windsor, but I don't see wholesale changes coming from Imlach now.

The other option, if you're going with a more defined defensemen, would be to swap Griffis out for Marshall, though his style is quite similar to Grant's, which is why we think Marshall is the apt choice for the 6. He's just a rock solid, been through the ringer, versatile player. The cherry on top is he's not inexperienced to playing in big games and often coming out on the winning side.

Just below is the thread where a lot of talk took place on Marshall, which highlights his time as both F/D.

Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 9

Procedure You will be presented with ~19 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to @seventieslord & @rmartin65 Use the same...

forums.hfboards.com

Thanks for participating Dr. JC!