Voting Record - quoipourquoi, Canadiens1958, steve141

[Dennis Bonvie]

Lalonde before Sakic.
(Keon before Bentley?)
Seibert before Robinson.

I would have liked to hear arguments for those rankings by these three.

Did you not have Lalonde before Sakic & Seibert before Robinson?

So you must know the arguments, right?

 

[daver]

Always amazed how C1958 will never answer questions directly.....

The 1980s Oilers during Gretzky's tenure, tended to be defensive disasters, collectively.

Asked multiple times to explain how a team that was average defensively based on GA can be a "disaster", and however one chooses to define their defense, how that mattered one whit given the Oilers' playoff success, or how Wayne should be viewed as being responsible for the team's defensive performances especially given that the Oiler's defensive performances showed no improvement after Wayne's departure.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You need an explanation on how the 80's Oilers were a mess defensively...? At some point the onus has to fall on you to have some kind of foundation of knowledge before trying Columbo your way through another interrogation...

"Just one more thing..." if Bobby Orr was so good, how come he didn't do anything after 1976? I mean, come on, surely you can bring something better...

 

[daver]

You need an explanation on how the 80's Oilers were a mess defensively...? At some point the onus has to fall on you to have some kind of foundation of knowledge before trying Columbo your way through another interrogation...

"Just one more thing..." if Bobby Orr was so good, how come he didn't do anything after 1976? I mean, come on, surely you can bring something better...

Yeah, when they were consistently in the middle of the pack in GA, an explanation is needed.....other than, "in subjective comparison to defenses from completely other eras".

I would think that despite all metrics pointing to Wayne being ranked at #1, at least among forwards, at least based on offensive performance, rating him #7 because the "the 80's Oilers were a mess defensively" puts the onus on the one making the claim.

 

[TheEye]

Always amazed how C1958 will never answer questions directly.....

Asked multiple times to explain how a team that was average defensively based on GA can be a "disaster", and however one chooses to define their defense, how that mattered one whit given the Oilers' playoff success, or how Wayne should be viewed as being responsible for the team's defensive performances especially given that the Oiler's defensive performances showed no improvement after Wayne's departure.

The Oilers were absolutely fine defensively, but they employed a defensive system which was misunderstood and envied by many. Precisely, their success was gained in this manner by placing five Stanley Cups in the neutral zone to impede the oncoming rush.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Those are two different questions. I'm not here to defend Gretzky being 7th...that's not my claim, nor do I support it. Having seen plenty of 80's Oilers games, it's not hard to figure out that the Oilers were structurally a mess defensively...compare their spacing and gaps, their NZ support triangles (or lack thereof) between the Isles and the Oilers of the same time period...the Oilers had one of the few net-positive goaltenders of the era, that helped with goals against...they also had the puck a lot, also won't hurt ya...but asking this question, really means that we're not watching these games (period) with any sort of eye for the game...which is unfortunate. I'm not saying everyone has to be 100% eye test all day or anything...but to completely ignore such a significant resource of information is borderline prohibitive to productive discussion...I mean, look at where we're at right now..."was Edmonton bad defensively?"

Might as well have this conversation on twitter...

 

[Nino33]

Yeah, when they were consistently in the middle of the pack in GA, an explanation is needed.....other than, "in subjective comparison to defenses from completely other eras".

Such things were said by some in the media. That's why a big deal was made that the Oilers not only won game one of the 1984 Final (their first Cup win), but they won it over the "defensively superior" Islanders with a 1-0 shutout

The Oilers 4 Cup wins with Gretzky were all over teams that the media and statistics said were "defensively superior" teams



I don't think the Oilers cared much about D and didn't focus on it outside the playoffs (and that was a process too; the first round loss in 1982 to the Kings and being swept in the 1983 SCF were part of the learning/growth that occurred that resulted in defensive play being more valued/practiced by the Oilers)

Even in the playoffs they didn't focus on D unless the opponent was actually a legitimate challenge/threat to actually stopping the Oilers attack

 

[Nino33]

Having seen plenty of 80's Oilers games, it's not hard to figure out that the Oilers were structurally a mess defensively

Were the Oilers actually losing a significant number of these games? Or is it just that they didn't care about D and were happy to win 8-6 or 10-7 or whatever

I HATED the Oilers in the 1980s (I was a goalie and was/am a fan of defensive, physical hockey). I also lived in Edmonton through much of the 80s and so saw the Oilers on local TV hundreds of times during this time

From 1985-1988, outside of 1986 when they lost to the Flames and 1987 when they beat the Flyers, I can't think of another series where there was even briefly a feeling the opponent might win

...compare their spacing and gaps, their NZ support triangles (or lack thereof) between the Isles and the Oilers of the same time period

But maybe don't do so watching the 1984 SCF

Probably not in 1984-85 either (Oilers won 6-4 and 7-5 and there was a 3-3 tie), or 1985-86 (6-4 Oiler win and a couple 4-4 ties) or 1986-87 (3-2 and 7-1 Oiler wins and a 3-3 tie).

Winless against the Oilers in 13 straight (while giving up 4.57 goals per game) - do the Islanders actually have to win to be considered superior defensively?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Yikes at the Mario and Wayne placings lmao

 

[Asheville]

C1958 shits on anything that takes attention away from his Habs. Don’t let his unique opinions offend you. His motives are pretty transparent. Docks Hasek points because he doesn’t like his technique and Gretzky for not playing enough defense. Can’t make this stuff up.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Love the game and learning.

The History of Hockey board will not be the same without his annoying stubbornness...

With these quotes in mind, I had a look at the Canadiens1958 list and ballot, simply with respect to the player I spent the most time "marking" for- Conacher. Specifically, the assessment vis-à-vis the most proximal comparable, Bernie Geoffrion. Now, could any of us add anything significant that would shift his judgement on Geoffrion? Didn't seem likely. Still, let's look.

On his Prelim List, he had Geoffrion one place ahead of Charlie Conacher.

In Vote 10, he reversed this order, placing Conacher slightly ahead.

In Vote 11, he reversed course again, putting Geoffrion back above him.

In Vote 12, He reassessed to the point that he found room for 4 players between Conacher (this time placed 3rd) and Geoffrion (placed 8th).

So- while he had his moments of discussing like a stubborn man, he, based on this sample at least, did not vote like a stubborn man. I can only guess at the internal dialog he must have been having with himself- weighing, measuring, re-assessing and re-considering all along.

In retrospect, it seems to have been his tendency to not post until he'd arrived at a clear-cut conclusion. Maybe that's why we were so quick to use the adjective stubborn. But I've convinced myself that there was an anything-but-stubborn side to 'Canadiens1958' that didn't make its way to the keyboard.

Wish I'd taken more notice of that side before he left us.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

So- while he had his moments of discussing like a stubborn man, he, based on this sample at least, did not vote like a stubborn man. I can only guess at the internal dialog he must have been having with himself- weighing, measuring, re-assessing and re-considering all along.

In retrospect, it seems to have been his tendency to not post until he'd arrived at a clear-cut conclusion. Maybe that's why we were so quick to use the adjective stubborn. But I've convinced myself that there was an anything-but-stubborn side to 'Canadiens1958' that didn't make its way to the keyboard.

Wish I'd taken more notice of that side before he left us.

i think we all have our moments, usually with our favourite (and least favourite) guys. i know i do. it's just that C1958's positions were farther out there, because they came from a different place than a lot of ours, which made him more of a lightning rod for criticism. and i sense he enjoyed the debate.

but it's not like i haven't endlessly argued about bure or the sedins until nobody else wanted to argue with me anymore. but generally my positions don't dog whistle the gretzky or mario, or god forbid crosby, police.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Hopefully Andrew's death is going to make some of his opinions and questions more mainstream now. If you look at the heat he took for ranking Gretzky at #7, you know for sure he touched a nerve, and if there was a nerve, there was an inconvenient truth in there as well.

One random thing I noticed in the last year was his continual (and even increasing) support for Martin Brodeur as a team foundation type goalie. He ranked him 3rd among goalies in Round 1, and then he flipped him and Sawchuk in Round 2, making him 2nd behind Plante.

 

[Theokritos]

So- while he had his moments of discussing like a stubborn man, he, based on this sample at least, did not vote like a stubborn man. I can only guess at the internal dialog he must have been having with himself- weighing, measuring, re-assessing and re-considering all along.

That's fair, and something to the same effect has actually been noted before:

One thing I've learned about C1958...sometimes he's just offering an alternative viewpoint or suggesting something be looked into further and the way he words such things can make it sound like he's giving his opinion when really he is

But as you've said yourself:

But I've convinced myself that there was an anything-but-stubborn side to 'Canadiens1958' that didn't make its way to the keyboard.

What made its way to the keyboard is what I was referring to and no, I certainly wasn't quick to use the adjective stubborn. In the discussion C1958 earned that adjective much more than any regular poster I have ever had discussions with.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Based on re-readability value and quantity/quality of his posts, there's a pretty strong case that Canadiens1958 was the greatest poster in hfboards history. I can think of a few other guys as well but I think he takes the cake. His age gave him an edge too, since he had a bigger pool of players he had witnessed first hand.

 

[Staniowski]

Hopefully Andrew's death is going to make some of his opinions and questions more mainstream now. If you look at the heat he took for ranking Gretzky at #7, you know for sure he touched a nerve, and if there was a nerve, there was an inconvenient truth in there as well.

One random thing I noticed in the last year was his continual (and even increasing) support for Martin Brodeur as a team foundation type goalie. He ranked him 3rd among goalies in Round 1, and then he flipped him and Sawchuk in Round 2, making him 2nd behind Plante.

re: Gretzky at #7

One thing everyone needs to remember about these types of simple rankings (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc) is that they tell a very small part of the story of how anybody thinks about these players. Everybody has different "spacing" between the numbers.

For example, when Canadiens1958 ranks Gretzky at #7, it's obviously possible that he thinks more highly of Gretzky, and rates him higher, than somebody else who ranks Gretzky at #3 (of course, this would mean that he rates Doug Harvey, etc. a lot higher than the other person does).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Based on re-readability value and quantity/quality of his posts, there's a pretty strong case that Canadiens1958 was the greatest poster in hfboards history. I can think of a few other guys as well but I think he takes the cake. His age gave him an edge too, since he had a bigger pool of players he had witnessed first hand.

I second the motion.

 

[sr edler]

I second the motion.

I would rank him 7th myself.

Seriously though, I never had a problem with that particular ranking and never posted about it. It was consistent with (most of) his other player rankings, and consistent with most of his list making philosophy.

The main thing I objected to with C58/Andrew was the notion that a player only can be judged on winning/team success, i.e. an individual is supposed to be judged on a collective. C58/Andrew was pretty steadfast on that opinion as far I got it. We never had an actual thread/thorough discussion on it though, bringing the nuances, ... so we'll never know, I guess.