seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Give two reviews and you'll move to the top of the list. I'll review you next.
If you like being in charge, don't storm out in a huff when someone starts an unrelated draft you don't approve of.
2014 MLD Assasination Thread
- Thread starter tony d
- Start date
Give two reviews and you'll move to the top of the list. I'll review you next.
If you like being in charge, don't storm out in a huff when someone starts an unrelated draft you don't approve of.
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
Regarding Bill Thoms, I will agree that he doesn't have a plethora of quotes calling him a great two-way player. However, the quote from Lloyd Percival that names him with Nighbor, Boucher, and Joe Primeau as a notable stick checker holds a lot of weight in my mind. We know those three were very good two-way players, but knew relatively little about Thoms. The fact that he was mentioned alongside them means a lot in my opinion.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I agree. As single quotes go, that's a really big one. It's also backed up by Pelletier as a secondary source (though for all we know, Pelletier could have been basing his thing off the Percival book).
I tried finding more on Thoms when I had him, but even when google archives was working properly, most of the articles mentioning him were behind a pay wall.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Brooks is an OK MLD coach. His resume was always fairly lacking, I thought, to be a legit ATD coach and even down here I like a good 5-6 better, but he's about average. Leadership group seems a bit weak. Was Ley a captain? I assume he was, if you're making him one here. But Meagher and Gallant as assistants seems a little off. I don't believe they were ever captains themselves; correct me if I'm wrong.
Savard is one of the best centers in the draft. Let me rephrase that - Savard is one of the highest point producing centers in the draft. There is plenty of reason to knock him down a few pegs. First, early on he benefitted from a superior linemate (or two) - though he's not entirely alone among the top tier centers here in that regard. Second, he's even more one-dimensional than most of these other guys. Third, a couple of his best seasons were spent on run-and-gun teams that ranked highly in both GF and GA, and were among the top few in total GF+GA. Why is this important? It lends itself to higher individual statistics, but if it brings less team success then those points are empty. Maybe I'm too hard on him. I'm not saying he's bad, just that it may be premature to just look at the 6-year score and declare him the 2nd/3rd best center in the draft. Anyway, Richer is an OK winger but as the previous chart shows, there are actually quite a few in this draft who proved to produce a lot better than he did. Still, as a pure goal scorer with a pure playmaker he will find some chemistry. Gallant is a pure glue guy here. All for puckwinning and physicality. Is it worth the skill trade off? Tough question. It's not like there are a lot of Dennis Hextalls in this draft so you have to sacrifice some toughness or some skill in your glue guy and you clearly did the latter. Interesting stat: 318 points in 298 games with Yzerman, 162 points in 317 games without. Anyway, this line does have all the elements to be cohesive; there's no doubt about that.
Second line is pretty standard. All three guys are about average in their roles. Christian is fairly suited to be a glue guy. He's not a banger or a defensive stud, but he's conscientious and competitive. This line will be pretty vanilla and rarely dynamic, but will never hurt you, either.
In Chamberlain, I think you have the best all-around 3rd line winger in the draft (not the best all-around player on a third line wing, but the best suited for the 3rd line). As you know, I wanted him and tried to pay handsomely for him in a trade, but you wouldn't bite. Meagher's an OK 3rd line center, but only OK. He's very good defensively, but won't give you much on the counterattack. Many teams in this draft were able to get comparable defensive players with a lot more skill (Ridley, Sundstrom, Holik, Koivu). Dornhoefer is about a middle of the road third liner. I like all the little things he can do, and he's actually got really solid numbers too. I'm so used to being underwhelmed by him as an ATD pick, that I just about completely ignored him in the MLD, then shortly before you took him, I was just revisiting his resume and said to myself, "wow, Dornhoefer would actually be a really good pick right now!" Overall this is a line oozing with intangibles; however, Meagher's relative lack of offense might mean the line lacks some oomph.
As much as I'm a fan of the third line, I'm not that big on your fourth line. And that might just be me, but regardless of the talent of fourth liners, I like to see intangibles - physicality, leadership, defense, etc. And although Gagner is a gritty guy, he's poor defensively. Watson is big and we'd all like to think he was physical, but no one has been able to verify this. Sykora has less intangibles than almost any player I've ever drafted before. This looks more like a 2nd second line. But did you need that? In any case, it's a unique take on a 4th line.
I think at the top end your D-men are a little below average, but it gets better and better as you go down the lineup; in fact, there may be very widely varying opinions about who are your true #1-5 guys. I personally have it O'Connell, Kubina, Yushkevich, Ley, Svoboda, but I could see someone having it in reverse too. It's a decent, overall average defense corps that has a little bit of everything you need. It also features 4 capable PP men and 4 capable penalty killers. Yandle I'm not a fan of. He can play the PP and sheltered 3rd pairing minutes, yes, but so can so many other undrafted players with careers 2-3X as long as his.
Kralik is about an average starter with a solid mix of award voting results, proven regular season prowess and some big-game experience in the worlds. Paton is, to me, a very good MLD backup. He could be a high end ATD backup or a AA scrub depending on who you ask, though.
Your spares I'm not thrilled about. Marks is a good multi-positional guy, which I love to see, but the others are all single position players and none of them scream "BPA" for that one position, either. You didn't take anyone terrible either, mind you.
Who are your leaders? You probably want Ley to be a captain, but after that I'm not seeing all that much.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I really don't think Ridley, Sundstrom, or Holik is comparable defensively with Rick Meagher. Better overall players definitely, perhaps even better 3rd liners due to overall game, but definitely not on the same defensive level.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Lahti Pelicans
Coach: Eddie Gerard
Marc Tardif -- Nicklas Bäckström -- Viktor Shalimov
Red Hamill -- Scott Gomez -- Jiri Lala
Baldy Cotton -- Patrik Sundstrom -- Chico Maki
Rob Zamuner -- Charlie Burns --Charlie Sands
Bill Ezinicki, RW Alex Burrows, RW Geoff Courtnell, LW (Sands and Zamuner can both play C)
Lou Fontinato -- Bryan McCabe
Niklas Kronwall -- Mario Marois
Percy Traub -- John Van Boxmeer
Alex Pietrangelo
John Bouse Hutton
Don Edwards
PP1: Tardif - Backstrom - Shalimov - McCabe - Van Boxmeer
PP2: Hamill - Gomez - Lala - Kronwall - Marois
PK1: Burns - Maki - Fontinato - Traub
PK2: Zamuner - Cotton - McCabe - Marois
PK3: Sands/Backstrom/Sundstrom
Pretty solid lineup with a definite TDMM flavour to it.
Gerard is a coach I've had, what, three times now? He's very strong for an MLD coach and is probably bound to be a "tweener" for years to come.
Backstrom is quite possibly the draft's top center and one of its three best overall offensive weapons. The only mark against him is that he was on the same line as the league's best player, which had to help his point totals; however, he's also done nearly as well without Ovechkin in the last couple of years so that helps to mitigate that. Shalimov might be a top-5 forward in this draft as well, if you go by the numbers I posted recently. It's been said that Tardif's "glue guy" skills aren't that well substantiated and I have to agree. I think there's some reason to believe he is suited to play that part on an MLD top line (and considering he has the numbers to play on an MLD top line too, that makes him quite valuable), but I think he's closer to Steve Thomas than Dennis Hextall in intangibles. Of course, given its firepower and range of skills, this is a line that will succeed highly in this draft.
Gomez is a pretty standard 2nd liner here. Probably the most biased towards assists in the entire draft, which lowers his value relative to guys like Allison, Apps, etc, but he does put up points. Lala is a steal for a 2nd liner. Hamill is probably the most goals-biased player in the draft. So although it may lead to predictability, he should have some chemistry with Gomez. He's also apparently a pretty tough player, at least about as tough as you could find for a player with his finishing ability at that time.
With Cotton and Sundstrom, you got two of my favourites. I mentioned last year that I had Sundstrom, who had long been a project of mine, just below Ridley, and I feel that way still. To me, Sundstrom is the 2nd best all-around 3rd line center in this thing. He was a very strong even strength scorer, a skilled defensive player, and an inspirational warrior. Cotton is another rambunctious, emotional player who will give the line a lot of spunk and secondary scoring. Maki's a guy I honestly don't know all that much about.
Burns is obviously your PK ringer, though I don't think he's a bad ES player and put up fairly decent numbers, too. Sands is a guy who I kinda wish had better substantiation for his defensive/physical game, but not to the point where I'd have a problem sticking him on a 4th line, because he is no slouch offensively. Zamuner kinda kills the line's potential offensive capability but he can defend. A very "prototypical" 4th line here.
McCabe is probably the 2nd best defenseman in this draft. At the MLD level, there's not much he wouldn't be able to consistently do at a high level. Fontinato's pretty good, but something about him on a first pairing still worries me somewhat. I get the impression he'd be a wildcard defensively, and though I honestly think McCabe is solid in the MLD, he's not solid to the extent that he should babysit. Marois is a really good second liner with a wide range of all-around skills. Kind of a poor man's McCabe, honestly. Kronwall I'm not too enthralled with, as you know. Traub is a highly overqualified 3rd pairing defender. JVB is a serviceable specialist being babysat on the 3rd pairing so no one can really exploit him.
As mentioned earlier, Hutton is likely a top-5 goalie in the MLD; perhaps higher. Edwards might by the draft's 2nd best backup, too.
Spares are about average. Pietrangelo is a good all-arounder for a #7 who won't have to play regular minutes with his all-time inexperience. Courtnall is one of the BPAs at wing, with the ability to play 2nd-4th line. Ezinicki is a lot less versatile and may have looked better playing 1st line glue guy in the AAA.
Overall, looking at all my rankings of the positions in this league, the only guys I don't really like where they are, are Zamuner and Kronwall. At the rest of the positions, you guys are at least average, and quite often well above average. This team will contend.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
One of the main reasons Zamuner was picked was to play LW at even strength and C on the PK.
Kronwall - it really depends on whether you think the player we've seen since Lidstrom retired was his "true" self all along. Being named World Championship MVP in 2006 (something I had no idea about until my partner told me) isn't super awesome, but is a bit of a feather in his cap IMo
Kronwall - it really depends on whether you think the player we've seen since Lidstrom retired was his "true" self all along. Being named World Championship MVP in 2006 (something I had no idea about until my partner told me) isn't super awesome, but is a bit of a feather in his cap IMo
Last edited:
4 Questions I have about this team:
- Your second line seems to be sacrificing offensive talent for defensive abilities with Murphy and Reay, but does Briere really fit here? Gingras seems like a better fit.
- However with either Briere or Gingras on the top line, the entire line seems to be playmakers. The team lacks a true sniper (except for spares Routh and McDougall). Who is playing this role?
- The team has a very good selection of checkers, but is there significant offense coming from the bottom six, especially considering the top six isn't an elite group in this league?
- Special teams?
The defense is very well balanced (the only complaint I could see incoming may be Gusarov in the top 4, but the depth is strong and the pairs could easily be rolled. Chemistry looks to be the most important thing with these pairs rather than a strict hierarchy in ice time). No issues with goaltending on your team either.
Hobnobs
Pinko
- Nov 29, 2011
- 8,932
- 2,282
Another feather in his cap was coming off his best season yet being Detroit offensive catalyst during basically the whole season. Voters for AS/Norris has no clue of what they are doing.
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
I think Gingras has the ability to be the "shooter" one the line in terms of chemistry. However, whether he is a good first line winger in this more talented MLD is a completely different question.
I've mentioned this in the past, but Briere at right wing is a very bad idea. When he was placed at RW in Philadelphia, his effectiveness decreased significantly. All of his best years were at center, including his best years in Philadelphia and Buffalo, and when he led the playoffs in points in 09-10 and goals in 11-12.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Gingras was more of a playmaker, wasn't he? I seem to recall finding that Bain had all the goals and he had most of the assists.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
what are your thoughts on moving on? I've done 7 reviews and I wouldn't mind doing a lot more. A few other mini-reviews and comments keep trickling in. We are at least generating discussion and that's a good thing, but at the same time it's not moving at a fast pace anymore.
I want to keep this going for a while still, but I don't want to just do it because I want to review more lineups. Please let me know if you support moving on with voting and playoffs, or if you want to keep lineup reviews going.
I want to keep this going for a while still, but I don't want to just do it because I want to review more lineups. Please let me know if you support moving on with voting and playoffs, or if you want to keep lineup reviews going.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Nick Mickoski - Buddy O'Connor - Mickey Redmond
Herb Cain - Andre Lacroix - Grant Warwick
Rabbit McVeigh - Syl Apps Jr - Barney Stanley
Magnus Arvedson - Mike Ricci (A) - Jimmy Peters
Bobby Carpenter - Bronco Horvath
Dick Redmond - Clem Loughlin (C)
Adrian Aucoin (A) - Dan Hamhuis
Steve Chiasson - Hy Buller
Joe Jerwa - Jim Morrison
Ryan Miller
Billy Nicholson
Coach: Rudy Pilous
PP1: Mickoski - O'Connor - M. Redmond - D. Redmond - Aucoin
PP2: Cain - Lacroix - Warwick - Chiasson - Loughlin
PK1: Ricci - Stanley - Hamhuis - Aucoin
PK2: McVeigh - Mickoski - Loughlin - Buller
PK3: Lacroix - Arvedson - Chiasson - Aucoin
Well-selected captains and assistants.
I like the mix on the first line. O'Connor is an average to below average 1st line center, but he is a strong playmaker and he's got two goals-biased wingers. Redmond is a Richer-type who can bury them when he gets them and Mickoski is underrated as a goal scorer - not a bad glue guy, either. It's clear you made the effort on this line to cover all your bases.
Lacroix, based on the numbers I crunched earlier, might be the best center in this draft, and he's certainly the best one playing on any second line. He's one-dimensional, but he's nearly unmatched as a point producer in this thing. Cain is another fairly one-dimensional point producer Warwick is a tough little fire hydrant who gives the line some fight while also scoring a few goals. You know something? I think that this line is better across the board. Lacroix is certainly better than O'Connor. Cain has better numbers than Redmond (and isn't so dependent on two seasons for his legacy) and Warwick is a better player than Mickoski (although to be fair, Mickoski may be the more well-rounded glue guy). The offensive difference between them is not small, though - it's roughly 20% in vsx score. This is your true first line!
I like the offense on the third line. Apps is one of the draft's more offensively potent players - he should really be on someone's 2nd line. Stanley, I was surprised to find out tonight, has a 6-year score of 401, which puts him in that class of players I listed earlier - just barely. I think besides these two, only Rogers and Gagnon aren't on someone's top-6. So you have two of the four most potent offensive players in this draft who aren't playing in a top-6, demonstrating a wealth of offensive depth. Apps is not a great third line type, but McVeigh sure is, and I get the impression that Stanley's versatility means he would be as well. This won't necessarily be a defensive line, but will make the opposition pay with some goals and is more responsible in its own end than average.
The fourth line is certainly more "traditional". I'm not a fan of Axelsson as an MLD player, personally. Weak offensive numbers, averaged 4 selke votes a season, not physical, extremely weak playoff record, saved only by very solid PK numbers (39%, 1% above average). But then if you take him in the MLD you take him on that basis alone. To me, it's not enough. Ricci is a defensive star in the MLD, and everything I don't like about Axelsson, I like about Ricci. Peters is well-known by now as a solid two-way player (I'm proud to say I picked him first, in MLD8, as a rookie, and completely out of nowhere!)
Clem Loughlin is a solid, average to above average #1 here. He could likely be described as a rich man's Gord Fraser, though admittedly sometimes I start to think Fraser is his equal. Aucoin I have as your #2 and he's a very good one. Hamhuis has enough meat on his resume by now to stand up as an excellent MLD #3. Redmond I have as your #4, and honestly not even a very good one. And you've got him up there on your top pairing, which might be problematic long-term. He does have good offensive instincts and can play on the PP, though. Buller is an OK #5 and Chiasson an excellent #6. Actually, isn't Chiasson better? They played just as long, Chiasson played a bit more per game (in the 90s, when minutes for top-3 defensemen started to trend downwards), and for 6% better teams. He was not as good on the PP but was superior on the PK (41%, 8% above average). I think he has less of a reputation as an "offenseman", too. (also, Redmond's scouting reports talk of him playing forward a bit). Just a thought, maybe he should be up on that first pairing and Redmond more sheltered?
BAHAHA, it was just now that I realized I was talking about Axelsson when you actually have Arvedson! Arvedson actually has some standout reasons to be selected - surprisingly strong ES scorer, a better selke record that most of us would admit is better than we remember, and excellent PK numbers - suuuuper short career though.
Miller we've talked about already. After reanalyzing everyone, I have him as a mid-tier starter, not backup caliber as I alluded to before. Nicholson is an excellent backup. One full tier after the last of his HHOF contemporaries is a good place for him.
Spares are kinda meh. Carpenter was close to the BPA as far as bottom line centers go when you took him. Horvath arguably close to BPA for offensive centers. Jerwa and Morrison seem like overkill in the "short career offenseman" department - and you already have Buller playing as your #5. I'd have liked to see a more well-rounded guy who can effective replace one of your more all-around or defensive defensemen.
Overall, a very good turnout. Nothing stands out as a very weak point. A few components seem only average to me, but many are above average or excellent.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Are there any pre-expansion centers better than O'Connor?
Edit: I mean in the MLD, of course
Edit: I mean in the MLD, of course
Last edited:
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
You could argue Tumba, Harry Smith, Herb Jordan, or Harry Trihey, but it's pretty much impossible to say definitively because they all played in non-consolidated times or a questionable European league.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I've reviewed the lineup of every GM who has reviewed at least one other. If no one else steps up, I may do a couple more. But I will do a review for any GM who steps up to review someone else.
Give and you shall receive.
Give and you shall receive.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Taylor - similarly one dimensional, better offensively.
Hay - close enough offensively that his enormous edge as an all around player puts him ahead.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
How come?
O'Connor's best scores after WW2 adjustment are 100, 81, 55, 55, 53, 49.
Taylor's are 89, 83, 80, 79, 70, 33.
That's just such a huge gap in 3rd, 4th and 5th-best seasons, and his total score is 10% higher. Neither does anything else of value, that I'm aware of.
Hay's best 6 scores total within two of O'Connor. The fact that Hull probably helped him pick up points (which should not be overstated, because Hull was not really a "elevate linemates" kind of player) should be offset by Hay's far more well-rounded game.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Game 4 Boston Celtics @ Indiana Pacers - Boston leads series 3-0Wagers: 3Staked: $2,757.00Event closes- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - ASSINIBOIA RACE 1 - WinnipegWagers: 2Staked: $1,100.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 3 Dallas Stars @ Edmonton Oilers - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 16Staked: $18,949.00Event closes- Updated: