I didn't say Pulford wasn't an impact player, I said he probably wasn't much of a hockey player in terms of puck and stick skills, and could probably have added skating.
I think the disconnect then is that we have different view points on what makes a player great. To me, a player is great because of the impact he makes, not because he may skate better or stickhandle better (both of which I agree that Westwick very likely - almost certainly - did better than Pulford). Having tools is great, but they don't matter unless they are being used to benefit the team. Flipping it around, I don't think Pulford was a better player than Westwick because he hit more/harder- I think Pulford was better because he helped his team more (IMO, of course, we'll never know for certain).
This is a very bulky paragraph but it doesn't really go into much details about his game. It sounds like a description of a Derian Hatcher type of player, style wise, if you read between the lines.
It's not going into details because it is summing up the series. Here are some more quotes that better describe how he played that series-
“Thereafter Pulford was without exaggeration of exception the most brilliant of the fourteen men on the ice and two of his rushes down the ice were directly responsible for goals, McGee doing the scoring each time. Pulford will ever be remembered for his playing Saturday night. It was marvellous for the way in which he threw himself into the struggle when it looked as though Ottawa might lose. He though a big man has the speed and science of a forward and the head of a general. The Ottawa hockey club could not do better than place Pulford permanently at cover point when his agility and speed have scope. At point these talents must necessarily be lacking”
“Pulford did it with his cyclonic rushes”
Another Ottawa paper wrote: “While every member of the Ottawa seven did his part nobly in the great struggle and earned a share of the glory for victory, Harvey Pulford is the man who turned the tide in Ottawa’s favor. Pulford played the best game of his long career as a hockeyist and stamped himself over and over again as the most effective defence man in the game”
But the king of them all was Harvey Pulford. His play of thursday night was thought the best he ever put up, but he eclipsed all his previous achievements, either in football or hockey, but the grand work he performed in defence of the Stanley cup Saturday night. He was irresistible. Every time he went down the ice he either shot or passed in a favorable situation for a shot. Some of the shots resulting were cleverly stopped by one or both of the goal minders, Geroux and Brown, and some went wide, but three at least of Ottawa’s goals were due to Harvey’s gigantic rushes. The fifth especially, which clinched the victory, was on one of his stellar plays, he giving the puck to McGee’s tenacious care for a close in attack. He was so aggressive throughout the game that he did more work than any other man on the ice. His defence, in addition to being the finest he ever did, was often turned into the most dangerous kind of attack”
“Of the four defence men playing, Pulford was the hero of the evening. He played probably the best game he has ever done. While at point he had not so much chance of distinguishing himself, but in the second half he went to cover and he there gave a great exhibition of first class hockey. It was also pleasant to note his clean style. Pulford has unfortunately none too good a name even in Ottawa, but there was little in his play to object to in last evening’s game. He was vigorous, it is true, and his weight invariably was brought to bear, but it was legitimate and there were many rousing cheers as he stopped the dangerous flight of Phillips and Griffis and not only that but he as often as not turned defence into attack”
Hatcher could only dream of impacting a game like that.
Points contributed some by lifting, which was a technique where you would essentially throw the puck the length of the rink with your blade, lacrosse style. Sometimes goals were scored this way. Of course there were points who could skate and such, but it didn't really come with the general job description. As for Pulford, I looked at his stats now, and there could obviously be some unrecorded games here and there, but it looks like in his first 10 years of hockey he scored 1 goal and had some sporadic assists.
Sure, I am familiar with lifting- coverpoints lifted regularly as well early on as well. I also agree that the point position - especially in the 1890s - was one that didn't contribute much offensively. My main point of contention was that you implied defenders weren't two way players, which I think does some of the coverpoints of the time dirty.
Pulford was definitely a late bloomer offensively. I agree that he did not do much there in the 1890s, but, then again, neither did Westwick. Westwick's first season of offensive relevance was probably 1902 (maybe 1896 according to some sources, but according to the stats I have collected using multiple primary sources, he was pretty far down the table).
I agree on Patrick and Ross and the overall role of the cover point, though as you pointed out Patrick transitioned up the ice position wise fairly early, and they were both a bit younger than Stuart. That season by Brennan confuses me a little bit, because he didn't score much in other years.
The Patricks (when they played defense) and Ross were both points, if I am remembering correctly. Campbell, Young, and Grant were three coverpoints whose offensive exploits preceded those of Stuart. Dickie Boon, actually, was another cover that was a touch younger than Stuart as well and brought forth some offensive flair.
