Elvis P
Lost in the supermarket 🛒
After reading the posts on this page, agreed. Ban us.Meanwhile a non-participant is wondering why Scott Stevens -already named is not up for consideration. Just another reason to ban non-participants.
After reading the posts on this page, agreed. Ban us.Meanwhile a non-participant is wondering why Scott Stevens -already named is not up for consideration. Just another reason to ban non-participants.
After reading the posts on this page, agreed. Ban us.
Elmer Lach's all-round game
In 1948, Canadiens coach Dick Irvin called Lach "the perfect 4 way center" - not only could he score goals and backcheck, but he was also adept at going to both sides of the ice. I assume this is contrasting Lach's creativity with the kind of center who would mostly stay in his lane. (@ehhedler posted this in the centers project)
The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search
Irvin loved Lach:
Dink Carroll, The Montreal Gazette - March 10, 1952
The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search
More sources on Lach's all-round game:
_____________________________
Lach's runner up Hart finish in 1951-52 was largely due to his performance with Maurice Richard out of the lineup
In the center's project, @overpass noted how strong Lach's performance was in 1951-52 when Maurice Richard was injured:
Here's a contemporary source on Lach's play during the season:
The Montreal Gazette - Recherche d'archives de Google Actualités
Devils engine was going nowhere with Stevens, similar to the Capitals and Blues, until coach Jacques Lemaire and Brodeur arrived.
At least I know the difference between Clint Benedict and Charlie Gardiner, meaning I have watched NHL / International hockey for over 60 seasons and researched it for over 40.
A quick and dirty argument for Bill Durnan...(I won't repost a bunch of stuff from previous discussions, it's all there for everyone to see).
When Durnan finished his career, it is not outlandish that he might have been considered the best ever at his position. This was an argument that was successfully made for Vezina, who has been on the list for a while. The contemporary challenger to Vezina's claim, Clint Benedict, also got elected two rounds ago. Charlie Gardiner was the next goaltender who could possibly make this claim, and he topped voting last round. Finally, Durnan's contemporary Frank Brimsek has a solid case for retiring as the game's greatest netminder, and he too was listed ages ago.
This will apply to Broda's candidacy as well, but there seems to be a peculiar gap forming between the WWI era of goaltenders and the WWII era. Questions were raised, reasonably so in my opinion, about the importance and quality of goaltending in the pre-forward pass era on back. It seems to be generally accepted that the position evolved continuously and grew in importance as the years went on. The high rankings of Plante, Hall, and Sawchuk would indicate that the position had definitely "arrived" by the early 1950s, and unless evidence to the contrary is presented, it seems reasonable to assume this growth was fairly linear.
Yet here we stand with Vezina, Benedict, and Gardiner now listed, while Brimsek is the lone goaltender from a pretty broad expanse (1935-1950 or so) to make the list. At this point, keeping Durnan or Broda out again would be hard to fathom. Unless somebody wants to argue that the quality of goaltending circa 1920 was superior to the quality circa 1950. Because the second-best goaltender from the WWI era (deemed to be Benedict by our panel) is already going to be at least a handful of spots better than the second-best from the WWII era (be it Durnan or Broda), despite apparent universal agreement that the goaltender position improved considerably between the two time periods.
(...)
Walter A. Brown, president of Boston Bruins
The Windsor Daily Star 1956
Beside Beliveau the Bruin prexy selected Gordie Howe, Detroit, right wing; Maurice (Rocket) Richard, Montreal, left wing; Eddie Shore, Boston, and Red Kelly, Detroit, defence; and Bill Durnan, Montreal goal.
In admitting that he is sticking his neck out to be axed by old-timers Brown comments: "Imagine picking an all-star team and not having on it such stars as Howie Morenz, Frank Boucher, Bill Cook and Chuck Gardiner. But in my opinion not one of them could replace a man on my team.
That might be nitpicking, and it might not exactly be the most relevant intervention in this project, but there are things that probably shouldn't be done, and "Quoting someone playing Maurice Richard on Left Wing on his All-Star team as authoritative of anything" is one of these things.
Good point. Sadly I don´t have that article (likely) in my bookmarks. I have to say it might be also my copy typing error too. I need to check if I can find it again.
Don't worry. We've had someone trying to make Stan Fischler pass as a Generic Contemporary Observer earlier on
Quotes from the past are absolutely a source. They also shows that strange (or plain bad) hockey evaluation/takes didn't appear when Mike Milbury was offered a front office job or when Bryan Marchment lamented at the fact Dennis Seidenberg had a job (and not him).
Richard was tried on the LW and wasn't that great.
Do we have much Durnan film? It's a tough time for that kind of stuff, I know...
Good finds, sanf. This moment on this day is the best I have felt about Durnan ever...it's not saying much, but it's also not saying nothing either...
Stevens was a lot more important then Brodeur.
What do you mean the difference between Gardiner & Benedict?
Meanwhile a non-participant is wondering why Scott Stevens -already named is not up for consideration.
Just another reason to ban non-participants.
Basic issue is that creating and submitting an initial list of 120 requires an investment of time and knowledge that creates an appreciation and understanding of the process.
Richard was tried on the LW and wasn't that great.
Until Lemaire and Brodeur showed up, teams with Stevens had losing playoff records. Devils then won 6 series out of 7 and an SC. Lemaire's simplified and modified trap combined with Brodeur's efficient puck handling covering Steven'sweaknesses while focusing on his strengths.
That might be nitpicking, and it might not exactly be the most relevant intervention in this project, but there are things that probably shouldn't be done, and "Quoting someone playing Maurice Richard on Left Wing on his All-Star team as authoritative of anything" is one of these things.
Until Lemaire and Brodeur showed up, teams with Stevens had losing playoff records. Devils then won 6 series out of 7 and an SC. Lemaire's simplified and modified trap combined with Brodeur's efficient puck handling covering Steven'sweaknesses while focusing on his strengths.
If this is the case, when why didn't Brodeur win another cup after Scott Stevens retired? Why didn't Lemaire win another cup without Stevens? It's because Stevens was the catalyst.