2018 Assassination Thread

[jarek]

So, I'll start off by saying that I really like this team. You've got a lot of offensive firepower, a strong goalie who is used to playing behind fairly wide-open offensive teams, and good roster-coach synergy. Should be one of the real contenders to win it all.

1st line: I thought waiting on Sittler like you did was brilliant. With Howe leading the way, you could afford to wait at that position, and I think you waited just long enough, and got excellent value. Wouldn't want a guy lower than Sittler as a 1st liner, but he's fine there. Tons of offensive firepower, plenty of grit, and enough defense to hold up (though I think Malone's defensive value is limited on the wing). Should be a lethal unit.

2nd line: Another quite strong unit, following a theme of scoring prowess all over the lineup. You've got a sort of puckwinning-by-committee setup here which I think will work with none of the three being dominant physically, but each being able to contribute. Richard's excellent two-way ability is enough for the line to be defensively cohesive, and offensively, they are excellent, with Richard among the best ES centers in history, and good wingers. Another excellent line.

3rd line: A little less enamored with this unit. Colville basically has Richard's role as the defensive conscience of the unit, and that's fine...I'm just not in love with Mogilny at even strength. Very talented, but his offensive contributions were so uneven. Enough grit between Marchand and Colville. Nothing terribly wrong with the unit...I'm just not much a fan of AlMo.

4th line: Mainly a special teams unit, and good in that role. Don't see them giving you much at even strength (Robert brings down an otherwise promising unit), but that's not terribly important.

1st pairing: I think Stevens is a below-average #1D at 24 teams, and in spite of past draft position, Larry Murphy is at the bottom-end of legit #2s, in my opinion (I've got him in the 49-52 range all-time). It's a good fit in terms of style, but not a great unit in terms of talent.

2nd pairing: Art Coulter is an excellent #3, imo. I've got him in the same tier as Larry Murphy. Pratt on a 2nd pairing (and where you drafted him) is probably my least favorite part of your team. I think he's an elite #5 or a low-end #4 at 24 teams (I have him as around the 100th best D of all-time) He's a guy whose best seasons came during the war years, and I don't think he was particularly sound defensively. Obviously, he's paired with a strong defensive #3 here, so that helps, but I think you could have done better, and he brings the unit down somewhat. Overall, a slightly above-average pairing, mainly because of Coulter.

3rd pairing: You surprised me with Pietrangelo, but I like the pick. I think both he and Harmon are solid #5s at 24 teams, and overall make for a strong third pairing, which is increasingly important as scoring third lines have become the norm in the draft.

Goaltending: Tretiak is a good goalie in a draft of this size, and a guy who did well dealing with a lot of shots, which I expect he will face behind a somewhat below-average defense (mainly due to the 1st pairing).

Coaching: Strong coach-roster synergy here. Sather is in the discussion for being in the top-10 coaches of all-time, and you've given him the keys to a team that should execute his tactics very well.

Power play: Not sure how I feel about Gordie Howe at the point, and Pratt is only ok as a second pointman on a 1st unit at this level. Obviously, Howe is amazing, but I just don't know that this is the best use of his talents. The forwards are ok. Malone is very good, but the other two look fairly mediocre as 1st unit guys. Malone has more grit than he is generally given credit for and Sittler was a scrapper, so they should be fine cycling the puck along the boards, but the talent is kinda meh. Second unit is pretty good, with good players at every position. Not in love with using Henri Richard on a PP, but I understand that he is too good not to use in that capacity, and I think he'll be fine in that role, though it does take away from his ES production somewhat (I gather Toe Blake liked to send Richard's line out after penalties to either team).

Penalty kill: Not sure how I feel about the three forwards look. I understand that Frank Boucher had a lot of success with this as a coach, but I'm not certain that this would translate well to the modern game. Outside of Crawford, the personnel are quite strong, and Tretiak is good, but I don't know enough about Crawford to judge him as a penalty-killer. I gather that Crawford was a good back-checker, but he spent almost the entirety of his career before there even were powerplays in the eastern leagues. Seems like a potential weakness. Second unit looks allright. Is Marchand really that great of a PKer? I honestly don't know, but I bet you do. The rest of the skaters are good, and Fleury is underrated as a penalty-killer, imo.

Overall, an excellent team, and one that has a real chance at the Cup. How well the defense and penalty kill units hold up will likely determine how far you advance.

I want to preface this by saying this is NOT an attack on you, or this team. Just wanted to say that because things seem to have become somewhat touchy lately.

What evidence is there that Tretiak played behind largely offensively based teams? Or that Sather's coaching style is even a good fit for Tretiak?

Tretiak played under Tarasov and then Tikhonov, or am I messing that up? Neither one of those coaches should be seen as an offensive coach, especially Tikhonov. I always thought Tarasov was a guy who wanted his players to play well defensively and maintain possession of the puck. In fact, Fred Shero won two cups using a system inspired by Tarasov's tactics, and I don't think those teams played an offensive style.

Just looking for some clarification or correction here.

 

[Sturminator]

I want to preface this by saying this is NOT an attack on you, or this team. Just wanted to say that because things seem to have become somewhat touchy lately.

What evidence is there that Tretiak played behind largely offensively based teams? Or that Sather's coaching style is even a good fit for Tretiak?

Tretiak played under Tarasov and then Tikhonov, or am I messing that up? Neither one of those coaches should be seen as an offensive coach, especially Tikhonov. I always thought Tarasov was a guy who wanted his players to play well defensively and maintain possession of the puck. In fact, Fred Shero won two cups using a system inspired by Tarasov's tactics, and I don't think those teams played an offensive style.

Just looking for some clarification or correction here.

Tretiak didn't actually play under Tarasov for that long...only early in his career, as Tarasov was fired from the national team shortly before the 1972 Summit Series, and retired from coaching CSKA in 1975. Tarasov's CSKA teams, where Tretiak started his career, played aggressive, wide-open hockey, but were mediocre defensively, and leaned heavily on Tretiak to bail them out. Tarasov's philosophical devotion to offensive hockey was absolute, and he flatly refused, for example, to ice checking lines. Those CSKA teams typically ended seasons well ahead of the rest of the league in terms of goals scored, but in the middle of the pack in terms of goals against. The national team under Tarasov played a similar style, just with more talent. On international ice, they struggled to maintain possession against North American teams due in large part to the fact that Soviet players of that era simply weren't any good at taking faceoffs, and because North American-style cycling was tactically alien to the Soviets. They were not unlike Sather's Oilers - capable of playing responsibly when the chips were down, but generally employing a freewheeling, attacking style of hockey. If you think Tarasov wasn't an "offensive coach", you're getting the wrong read.

The years between Tarasov and Tikhonov were something of a mess, though CSKA and the national team generally carried on Tarasov's tactics through his disciples (Kulagin most prominent among them), to mixed results (they got beat by the Czechs a lot during this period). Tikhonov's teams, where Tretiak spent the last and arguably best years of his career, were considerably more disciplined, though still quite aggressive.

If you're interested in going through Soviet league and international scoring tables to get a feeling for how those teams performed, you can find the information here: http://www.hockeyarchives.info/archives.htm

 

[jarek]

Tretiak didn't actually play under Tarasov for that long...only early in his career, as Tarasov was fired from the national team shortly before the 1972 Summit Series, and retired from coaching CSKA in 1975. Tarasov's CSKA teams, where Tretiak started his career, played aggressive, wide-open hockey, but were mediocre defensively, and leaned heavily on Tretiak to bail them out. Tarasov's philosophical devotion to offensive hockey was absolute, and he flatly refused, for example, to ice checking lines. Those CSKA teams typically ended seasons well ahead of the rest of the league in terms of goals scored, but in the middle of the pack in terms of goals against. The national team under Tarasov played a similar style, just with more talent. On international ice, they struggled to maintain possession against North American teams due in large part to the fact that Soviet players of that era simply weren't any good at taking faceoffs, and because North American-style cycling was tactically alien to the Soviets. They were not unlike Sather's Oilers - capable of playing responsibly when the chips were down, but generally employing a freewheeling, attacking style of hockey. If you think Tarasov wasn't an "offensive coach", you're getting the wrong read.

The years between Tarasov and Tikhonov were something of a mess, though CSKA and the national team generally carried on Tarasov's tactics through his disciples (Kulagin most prominent among them), to mixed results (they got beat by the Czechs a lot during this period). Tikhonov's teams, where Tretiak spent the last and arguably best years of his career, were considerably more disciplined, though still quite aggressive.

If you're interested in going through Soviet league and international scoring tables to get a feeling for how those teams performed, you can find the information here: http://www.hockeyarchives.info/archives.htm

I think I might use that to get a feel for how Chernyshev's teams did. Thanks!

 

[overpass]

I want to preface this by saying this is NOT an attack on you, or this team. Just wanted to say that because things seem to have become somewhat touchy lately.

What evidence is there that Tretiak played behind largely offensively based teams? Or that Sather's coaching style is even a good fit for Tretiak?

Tretiak played under Tarasov and then Tikhonov, or am I messing that up? Neither one of those coaches should be seen as an offensive coach, especially Tikhonov. I always thought Tarasov was a guy who wanted his players to play well defensively and maintain possession of the puck. In fact, Fred Shero won two cups using a system inspired by Tarasov's tactics, and I don't think those teams played an offensive style.

Just looking for some clarification or correction here.

In the 1970s, the defence position was the Achilles heel of the Soviet teams. They just weren't at the quality of their forwards. North American observers at the time were pretty well agreed on this.

I've watched the 1972 Series in full and I agree. Canadian forwards beat the Soviet defenders 1-on-1 frequently, and Tretiak made a lot of big saves. Valeri Kharlamov made his name in Canada by beating Awrey and Seiling repeatedly in Game 1, but after the lineup changes in Game 2 Canadian defenders were far better than the Soviets. Granted there was a lot more hockey played in the 1970s that I haven't seen.

What happened when the Soviets finally got some world-class defencemen in the 1980s? Tretiak won three consecutive Golden Stick awards from 1981-83 as European player of the year.

The Czechoslovakian team clearly played a more defensive style of hockey than the Soviets in the 1970s, and arguably had stronger defensive personnel as well.

 

[overpass]

So, I'll start off by saying that I really like this team. You've got a lot of offensive firepower, a strong goalie who is used to playing behind fairly wide-open offensive teams, and good roster-coach synergy. Should be one of the real contenders to win it all.

1st line: I thought waiting on Sittler like you did was brilliant. With Howe leading the way, you could afford to wait at that position, and I think you waited just long enough, and got excellent value. Wouldn't want a guy lower than Sittler as a 1st liner, but he's fine there. Tons of offensive firepower, plenty of grit, and enough defense to hold up (though I think Malone's defensive value is limited on the wing). Should be a lethal unit.

2nd line: Another quite strong unit, following a theme of scoring prowess all over the lineup. You've got a sort of puckwinning-by-committee setup here which I think will work with none of the three being dominant physically, but each being able to contribute. Richard's excellent two-way ability is enough for the line to be defensively cohesive, and offensively, they are excellent, with Richard among the best ES centers in history, and good wingers. Another excellent line.

3rd line: A little less enamored with this unit. Colville basically has Richard's role as the defensive conscience of the unit, and that's fine...I'm just not in love with Mogilny at even strength. Very talented, but his offensive contributions were so uneven. Enough grit between Marchand and Colville. Nothing terribly wrong with the unit...I'm just not much a fan of AlMo.

4th line: Mainly a special teams unit, and good in that role. Don't see them giving you much at even strength (Robert brings down an otherwise promising unit), but that's not terribly important.

1st pairing: I think Stevens is a below-average #1D at 24 teams, and in spite of past draft position, Larry Murphy is at the bottom-end of legit #2s, in my opinion (I've got him in the 49-52 range all-time). It's a good fit in terms of style, but not a great unit in terms of talent.

2nd pairing: Art Coulter is an excellent #3, imo. I've got him in the same tier as Larry Murphy. Pratt on a 2nd pairing (and where you drafted him) is probably my least favorite part of your team. I think he's an elite #5 or a low-end #4 at 24 teams (I have him as around the 100th best D of all-time) He's a guy whose best seasons came during the war years, and I don't think he was particularly sound defensively. Obviously, he's paired with a strong defensive #3 here, so that helps, but I think you could have done better, and he brings the unit down somewhat. Overall, a slightly above-average pairing, mainly because of Coulter.

3rd pairing: You surprised me with Pietrangelo, but I like the pick. I think both he and Harmon are solid #5s at 24 teams, and overall make for a strong third pairing, which is increasingly important as scoring third lines have become the norm in the draft.

Goaltending: Tretiak is a good goalie in a draft of this size, and a guy who did well dealing with a lot of shots, which I expect he will face behind a somewhat below-average defense (mainly due to the 1st pairing).

Coaching: Strong coach-roster synergy here. Sather is in the discussion for being in the top-10 coaches of all-time, and you've given him the keys to a team that should execute his tactics very well.

Power play: Not sure how I feel about Gordie Howe at the point, and Pratt is only ok as a second pointman on a 1st unit at this level. Obviously, Howe is amazing, but I just don't know that this is the best use of his talents. The forwards are ok. Malone is very good, but the other two look fairly mediocre as 1st unit guys. Malone has more grit than he is generally given credit for and Sittler was a scrapper, so they should be fine cycling the puck along the boards, but the talent is kinda meh. Second unit is pretty good, with good players at every position. Not in love with using Henri Richard on a PP, but I understand that he is too good not to use in that capacity, and I think he'll be fine in that role, though it does take away from his ES production somewhat (I gather Toe Blake liked to send Richard's line out after penalties to either team).

Penalty kill: Not sure how I feel about the three forwards look. I understand that Frank Boucher had a lot of success with this as a coach, but I'm not certain that this would translate well to the modern game. Outside of Crawford, the personnel are quite strong, and Tretiak is good, but I don't know enough about Crawford to judge him as a penalty-killer. I gather that Crawford was a good back-checker, but he spent almost the entirety of his career before there even were powerplays in the eastern leagues. Seems like a potential weakness. Second unit looks allright. Is Marchand really that great of a PKer? I honestly don't know, but I bet you do. The rest of the skaters are good, and Fleury is underrated as a penalty-killer, imo.

Overall, an excellent team, and one that has a real chance at the Cup. How well the defense and penalty kill units hold up will likely determine how far you advance.

Thanks for the review. I agree with most of it. I'll make a couple of points.

You picked on Alex Mogilny and Babe Pratt a little. OK, fair enough -- Mogilny was the original Russian enigma and Pratt was a similar case. But they should both be in a position to succeed on a Glen Sather team, with freedom to play their style on the ice and strong leadership to help keep them in line off the ice. Mogilny's best season came playing for Sather's right hand man John Muckler.

I don't think there's much out there knocking Babe Pratt's defensive play. He played more defensively with the Rangers because that was their system and they were loaded at forward and didn't need him to rush. In Toronto, he became a rusher because the Leafs needed it and Hap Day could see it. Of course the decreased quality of play in the league was a factor in Pratt winning the Hart Trophy, but that's not to say he couldn't have been a rusher with the league at full strength. A couple of quotes from the bio created by seventieslord:

On Pratt's defensive play:
Players: The Ultimate A-Z Guide Of Everyone Who Has Ever Played in the NHL

He was one of a kind, a man whose charisma outlasted his reputation to allow him to enter the HHOF...a great hockey player, a champion at every level he played...he was paired with Ott Heller and they proved to be a magnificent match...the Rangers won the cup in large part because when they were on the ice, the opposition almost never scored.
​

On Pratt's change to a rushing style in Toronto:
The Glory Years
He was a free spirit on and off the ice who hated playing under Ranger coach Frank Boucher's restrictive system. Pratt had great skills and was an offensive defenseman, but Boucher refused to let him skate with the puck past center ice. When Pratt was traded to Toronto, he felt as if a yoke had been lifted from him, and indeed, Day, despite his own disciplined system, recognized Pratt's abilities and let him go with the puck... Day never attempted to stop Pratt from rushing the puck because "it would have been like trying to tell Apps to play defensive hockey."

Sather will be calling the shots on style of play overall, not Boucher...so Pratt has the green light.

Re: your comments on the power play, I'm not really set on that unit. It may change. The main question is if Howe is up front or on the point, of course.

Re: your comment on the three forward penalty kill translating to the modern game...well, it was a great unit in 1940. If division rival PPQBs Eddie Shore and King Clancy can translate to a modern power play from the 1930s, why can't Frank Boucher's penalty kill translate with the right personnel?

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

View attachment 94539

Coach: Lester Patrick

Aurèle Joliat - Howie Morenz (A) - Helmuts Balderis
Doug Bentley - Max Bentley - Dave Taylor (A)
Zach Parise - Duke Keats - Jimmy Ward
Marty Pavelich - Steve Kasper - Don Marcotte
Dave Trottier, Billy Burch

Jack Stewart - King Clancy (C)
Art Ross - Tom Johnson
Ted Harris - Jiří Bubla
Marc-Edouard Vlasic

Jiří Holeček
Percy LeSueur

Powerplay:

Keats
Morenz - Joliat
Clancy - M. Bentley

Taylor
Balderis - D. Bentley
Bubla - Ross

Penalty Kill

Marcotte - Pavelich
Stewart - Johnson

Kasper - Ward
Harris - Clancy​

 

[kruezer]

Coach: Fred Shero

Ted Lindsay (A) - Edouard "Newsy" Lalonde (A) - Reginald "Hooley" Smith
Keith Tkachuk - Jean Ratelle - Jari Kurri
Dean Prentice - Ralph Backstrom - Dirk Graham
Adam Graves - Mike Richards - Shane Doan

Denis Potvin (C) - Shea Weber
Mike Grant - Jack Crawford
Kevin Lowe - Yuri Lyapkin

Tony Esposito
Tom Barrasso


Spares: Ken Morrow, D - Gaye Stewart, LW - Doug Weight, C - Blake Wheeler, RW


PP1: Keith Tkachuk - Ted Lindsay - Newsy Lalonde - Denis Potvin - Shea Weber
PP2: Shane Doan - Jean Ratelle - Hooley Smith - Jari Kurri - Yuri Liapkin

PK1: Mike Richards - Dirk Graham - Denis Potvin - Jack Crawford
PK2: Dean Prentice - Ralph Backstrom - Kevin Lowe - Shea Weber​

First off, I will say I really like your team Iceman, Kurri is my favourite player of all time so I am a sucker for your team to begin with but overall I think its very solidly built.

Coaching/Leadership: The Fog is a great coach of course, his work in Philly aside I have been reading up myself on Espo's time in NY and I've gained further appreciation for Shero's work as a coach. I think he was flexible to different types of teams. That said, I don't think your team lacks toughness, they aren't the BSBs but I wouldn't call them shrinking violets either. On ice leadership is fantastic too, I might have given Lindsay the C myself but I can't argue with Potvin.

Line 1: I like this line, Lalonde is gonna score so many damn goals playing with Lindsay & Hooley. I don't see too many holes in this line, finishing, playmaking, toughness, defense. They aren't exactly a big group though, while I wouldn't doubt their ability to fight back I could see them struggling a bit against a D pairing with a lot of size to it.

Line 2: I like this line even more I think. I know Kurri has routinely gone too high in this draft in order to be paired with Gretzky, but he really is a unique player in hockey history. Ratelle is solid as a second line C and I think I underrate Tkachuk in an all time context, he really has better longevity than I give him credit for, scoring 27 & 25 goals after the trade to Atlanta and return to St. Loo is really impressive. Tough line to play against from many angles I think.

Line 3: This is a solid checking line, I struggle with how much offense I think this line can create, Dirk & Backstrom both had career seasons that blur a bit how we should think of them offensively, Dirk especially. Not that they should be taken away from them by any means as they still accomplished them, but it factors in a bit. I think this line can be a real deciding factor comparing your team in a PO series for better or for worse.

Line 4: Richards is a weird player in hockey history, I will admit I am not sure how to view him, I kinda think Doug Weight is better than him, but Richards has obviously got a great PO resume. I also think that Blake Wheeler is better than Shane Doan, but has a smaller total resume.

Pairing 1: Love this pair obviously, Potvin rules of course. Still weird to see Weber on a top pairing to me, rationally I can understand it when you split your top 2 D picks, but a part of me still thinks of guys drafted in 03 as so young but it’s been 15 f***ing years, where does the time go. Conveniently for you I think this is one of the top d pairings that would do well against your top line, good work keeping them away from others.

Pairing 2: This is a really interesting pair, but really hard to get a read on. They make sense in terms of a pair though, Grant on offense Crawford on defense. Grant is a player I need to read up more on.

Pairing 3: Solid enough, pretty much average as a third pair.

Goalie: Tony O is well enough known for what he brings and can't. I don't think I need to go into detail. I see an issue with him going against Broda or Dryden in the POs.

Spares: Solid choices, as I said earlier I think Weight and Wheeler are good enough to be 4th liners, though I might be projecting on Wheeler future value a bit. Morrow could easily step in on the bottom pair as needed.

PP: I don't see any major issues, Potvin/Weber can both run a PP, maybe the only issue would be not enough puck.

PK: Was Richards a better PKer than Backstrom? I ask this honestly, this is why I wanna take part in a PK study for sure.

 

[jarek]

New York Americans

Coaches: Anatoli Tarasov, Billy Reay
Captain: Boris Mikhailov
Alternate Captains: Sid Abel, Anze Kopitar, Brad Park

Paul Kariya-Stan Mikita-Boris Mikhailov
Sid Abel-Steven Stamkos-Rod Gilbert
Gordon Roberts-Anze Kopitar-Ace Bailey
Dave Balon-Don Luce-Blair Russel

Spare Forwards: Lynn Patrick, LW, Terry O'Reilly, RW

Borje Salming-Brad Park
Babe Siebert-Bob Goldham
Vasili Davydov-Joe Hall

Spare Defense: Lars-Erik Sjoberg

Bernie Parent
Sergei Bobrovsky

PP1
Stamkos-Mikita-Mikhailov
Kariya-Park

PP2
Roberts-Abel-Gilbert
Salming-Hall

PK1
Luce-Bailey
Salming-Goldham

PK2
Kopitar-Dave Balon
Siebert-Park

​

Well, I am sure every GM says it this time of year, but I have to say it- I am really excited about this team.

Coaching and Leadership
This has historically been a weaker part of my teams, but not this year; Tarasov and Reay fit well with my team- an attacking team with a strong defense- with Mikhailov and Abel leading on the ice and in the locker room, I don’t think we have any concerns on that front.

1st Line
This is one of the strongest lines in the draft, in my opinion. Offensively, it has it all- 2 very capable puck carriers that can beat you with a pass or a shot in Kariya and Mikita to go with puck-winning and defensive ability in Mikita and Mikhailov. VsX isn’t the end-all-be-all, but this unit has a 7 year score of 278.7 (if you give Mikhailov an 86, which is roughly the same score as Iginla. I think he should be higher, but I will make that case at another time). As far as negatives- it is not a very physical line. Mikita and Mikhailov are pretty ornery and won’t back down from anyone, but this line wont be a physically punishing unit.

2nd Line
I haven’t run the numbers for all of the teams, but again, this unit has to be one of the more offensively potent 2nd lines out there, with a 7-year VsX of 253.4, with the potential to increase with Stamkos’ current season- it is basically a suped-up GAG line, with Abel playing the ‘driver’/’digger’ role (as he did in real-life) and defensive safety-valve. Stamkos brings top-notch sniping and underrated playmaking, while Gilbert does the same thing he did alongside Ratelle and Hadfield. Everyone can pass (to varying degrees), and everyone can score. I should add that Abel will take the lion’s share of faceoffs. The downside to this line is that I don’t think it is very strong defensively, nor, like the top line, will it be a physically punishing squad. While I don’t think Stamkos and Gilbert are bad defensive players, they don’t seem to be much more than average in that respect. Abel is above average, but still, the unit as a whole is below average in that regard.

3rd Line
Building around Kopitar, my 3rd line is predicated on strong 2-way play. Kopitar has to be one of the upper-tier 2 way 3rd line centers at this point (in terms of total offensive and defensive package), and Roberts and Bailey add additional size and ability to the unit. Getting VsX out of the way (and giving Roberts a 74, as per a number I saw thrown about last year)- 217.7, not including the bump that Kopitar is going to get this year. Each player is well-above average in size, and while maybe not a punishing line, they can each play the body well and effectively.

4th Line
This line is mainly for defensive situations. It could use more physicality, but I think in terms of skill and ability, this line is above average among the other 4th lines in the league.

Spares
It is unfortunate that most people (I assume) pay little attention to spares, because I think I landed 2 players here that could very easily be regulars; Patrick in particular should be a very solid second-liner, but his extreme dislike of the physical game relegates him to spare-status in a draft this size. However, because he is so talented, I have no problems with him taking over for Kariya when Kariya is injured. O’Reilly adds some muscle without being useless offensively. I didn’t draft a center because I have a couple wingers who played center- Abel and Russel can both shift to center.

1st Pairing
While I missed out on one of the elite number 1 defensemen, in a draft this size Park is still an average to above-average one who is very well-rounded. Salming is a low-end number 1/elite number 2 who is also pretty well rounded, so this should be one of the better 1st pairings in the league. Simply put, it is a plus pairing across the board- defensive ability, physicality, skating, passing, and shooting.

2nd Pairing
I follow up my 1st pairing with another strong unit, with Siebert being a high-end number 3/low-end number 2, and Goldham being a solid number 4. Siebert brings the physicality and offensive skills, while Goldham is the stay-at-home shot blocker with a good outlet pass. Stylistically, I really like this pairing.

3rd Pairing
Again, I think I hit on meshing styles, in much the same way as I did on my second pairing- Davydov plays the role of defensive safety-valve (though many people have written about his passing and skating abilities), while Hall plays the role of offensive driver with a (wicked) mean-streak.

Spare
Sjoberg is an undersized defender but brings a physical presence and strong offensive game. He is a spare, but I don’t have a problem with him on my bottom pairing in the event of injury.

Goaltenders
I am below average here, I wont try to argue the point. However, Parent is not weak to the point that I think he puts my team at a significant disadvantage, especially in the playoffs (where Parent shined). Bobrovsky is a bit of a mercurial case, with very high highs and pretty low lows. However, few backups can boast of 2 Vezina’s/1st Team All-Star nods and 2 Top-5 Hart voting finishes in a 30 team league. His playoff record is quite poor… but I (or rather, Tarasov and Reay) wont be starting our backup in the playoffs. Bobrovsky is there to spell Parent in the regular season, and to keep Parent fresh for the playoffs. Bobrovksy certainly has the record for that.

PP
I think my PP units are above average, but not elite. On my top unit, Mikita, Park and Kariya should be able to drive defenses crazy finding the open shooter (ideally Stamkos or Park), with Mikhailov provind screens and getting greasy garbage goals. The second unit is set up in much the same way, with Gilbert, Salming and Siebert (or Hall, I haven’t really decided) distributing the puck to each other or Roberts, and Abel being the net-front presence.

PK
Like my PP units, I think my PK is pretty strong all the way around. Luce is one of the best, and Kopitar is easily a top PK player who I have slumming it on the second unit. The defensemen are all above-average as PKers as well, with Salming, Goldham and Davydov being well-noted shot blockers.

Right back at you!

Coaching: I'm not sure how I feel about Tarasov anymore. Chernyshev was the head coach of the national team and I am just not entirely certain how much of the NT success is on him and how much is on Tarasov. Tarasov was said to have worked directly with the players and devised the tactics, but I wonder how he would have done without Chernyshev, who not only acted as a diplomat for the players, but was also said to have been very good at analyzing weaknesses of other teams and use that to beat them? Reay certainly handles the player's coach duties but not sure what other help he can provide Tarasov. Would love to hear some feedback on this.

Leadership: I'm not as big on leadership as most others seem to be, but your group seems fine enough.

I honestly couldn't care less about how the players on the lines rank in a vacuum and right now there's nothing to compare them to so I'll just make a few comments.

Scoring lines: First line has everything you need and then some. I am somewhat concerned about the physicality on the second line though. Stamkos is no shrinking violet, but I wouldn't call him especially physical either, and I don't really understand what makes Gilbert such a good match with him? He played with Jean Ratelle who had a very different offensive game to Stamkos. This year looks promising for Stamkos' ability to play with a different style of offensive player, but it remains to be seen if that will continue.

Checking line/s: Seems you have two checking lines here, which is very important given the league size. There are a lot of 2nd lines that look like 1st lines and you look well equipped to handle that.

Defense: I really like that your defense doesn't have any defensive liabilities. I made it a point myself to make sure I didn't end up with that. Most 3rd pairs here are going to be playing against some high powered lines and the likes of Housley, Ozolinsh, etc. are going to be exposed. One thing that sticks out to me is that your 2nd pair is very light on puck movement. That could be an issue, especially against hard forechecking lines that won't give those two time to clear the zone in an effective manner. They may end up icing the puck a lot which could cost you.

Goaltending: You said it yourself, nothing to write home about. I do like Parent but he doesn't stand out here.

PP: Looks pretty strong, all things considered.

PK: OK so it came up during the draft and I'm going to say it here. Bailey's credentials as a PK'er are well known but his relatively short career as one is a knock against him. I'm not sure that I'd want him on the 1st PK if it can be helped. I also share similar sentiments about Balon. He was a great defensive forward, but how much did he actually PK? You mentioned Davydov on your PK but I don't see him there. Not really sure you need him there with the guys that you've listed though. I'd prefer to leave him off for more well known commodities myself.

Overall you've built another very strong team. Good luck!

 

[Sturminator]

I don't think there's much out there knocking Babe Pratt's defensive play. He played more defensively with the Rangers because that was their system and they were loaded at forward and didn't need him to rush. In Toronto, he became a rusher because the Leafs needed it and Hap Day could see it. Of course the decreased quality of play in the league was a factor in Pratt winning the Hart Trophy, but that's not to say he couldn't have been a rusher with the league at full strength. A couple of quotes from the bio created by seventieslord:

On Pratt's defensive play:
Players: The Ultimate A-Z Guide Of Everyone Who Has Ever Played in the NHL

He was one of a kind, a man whose charisma outlasted his reputation to allow him to enter the HHOF...a great hockey player, a champion at every level he played...he was paired with Ott Heller and they proved to be a magnificent match...the Rangers won the cup in large part because when they were on the ice, the opposition almost never scored.
​

On Pratt's change to a rushing style in Toronto:
The Glory Years
He was a free spirit on and off the ice who hated playing under Ranger coach Frank Boucher's restrictive system. Pratt had great skills and was an offensive defenseman, but Boucher refused to let him skate with the puck past center ice. When Pratt was traded to Toronto, he felt as if a yoke had been lifted from him, and indeed, Day, despite his own disciplined system, recognized Pratt's abilities and let him go with the puck... Day never attempted to stop Pratt from rushing the puck because "it would have been like trying to tell Apps to play defensive hockey."

Just wanted to follow up on this. I'll make my misgivings about Pratt a bit more precise. The profile you've got linked in the roster post lists the following as Pratt's all-star credentials:

Top-9 in All-star voting 6 times (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th)

...which looks great, but I find it rather superficial. Here are Pratt's full all-star voting results for his career:

1937-38: Alternate Team Left D - 1 vote
1938-39: Alternate Team Left D - 1 vote; Alternate Team Right D - 1 vote
1939-40: First Team Left D - 1 vote; Alternate Team Left D - 1 vote
1940-41: Alternate Team Left D - 1 vote
1941-42: First Team Right D - 1 vote; First Team Left D - 1 vote; Alternate Team Left D - 2 votes
-----------------------War Years-----------------------
1942-43: First Team Left D - 3 votes; Alternate Team Left D - 9 votes
1943-44: 632 points - 1st place; Hart Trophy
1944-45: 93.5 points - 3rd place
1945-46: two 3rd place votes; one 4th place vote

I haven't taken the time to crunch how Pratt's voting results line up with the all-star placements in his profile, but I think it is worth noting that damn near all of his all-star recognition came during the war years: 1942-43 to 1945-46. As I'm sure you know, the NHL was a wide-open league during that period - much more high-scoring than when the league was at full strength.

Although we have what I think is an acceptable wartime fudge for forwards in the VsX system, wartime all-star and scoring finishes for defensemen do still have to be discounted. How much they should be discounted is anybody's guess, but I don't think they should be taken at face value. It's telling that Pratt seemed to do well in the freewheeling (and depleted) war era, but got precious little recognition in the full-strength league. This suggests to me that his game wasn't seen as particularly valuable in a more defensive league...hence my skepticism about his defensive abilities.

It is exceedingly rare to find direct criticism of the defensive abilities of defensemen from Pratt's era (I know only of indirect criticism of Pat Egan's defensive game). We kind of have to go on conjecture here, but I am skeptical of defensemen who were stars during the war era and "just guys" in a full-strength league. This goes for Flash Hollett, as well. Maybe it was a problem of coaching under Boucher, but those Rangers weren't bad offensive teams (2nd, 2nd, 3rd and 1st in scoring while Pratt was there - 7 team league), and Pratt actually did score well for a defenseman while on the Rangers; he just didn't get a lot of all-star votes.

Pratt's style of play obviously fits well into Sather's system, and he's paired with an excellent defensive partner here, one who I believe he played with in real life, at least for a little while. That's good, but the arc of his career still makes me suspicious of his defensive game, and it troubles me that he was competing against a ragged field of blueliners in the only years in which he received substantial all-star votes.

I'm sorry if this seems like an attack on Pratt, but I think he is a very interesting player whose career deserves more scrutiny than it's gotten. I'm not convinced we have properly valued him yet in the ATD.

 

[VMBM]

The years between Tarasov and Tikhonov were something of a mess, though CSKA and the national team generally carried on Tarasov's tactics through his disciples (Kulagin most prominent among them), to mixed results (they got beat by the Czechs a lot during this period). Tikhonov's teams, where Tretiak spent the last and arguably best years of his career, were considerably more disciplined, though still quite aggressive.

The Tarasov-Chernyshev led Team USSR got beaten a lot by the Czechs too, though, starting from the 1968 Olympics; lost twice at the 1969 WHC, lost and tied at the 1971 WHC. And imo the national team did initially pretty well post Tarasov in 1973-75; during that time period, they lost only 1 world championship game out of 30, albeit it was a bad one, 2-7 vs CSSR (but won 5 WHC games against the Czechs!). The years 1976-77 were certainly a mess, and so Tikhonov got the job.

 

[VMBM]

I've watched the 1972 Series in full and I agree. Canadian forwards beat the Soviet defenders 1-on-1 frequently, and Tretiak made a lot of big saves. Valeri Kharlamov made his name in Canada by beating Awrey and Seiling repeatedly in Game 1, but after the lineup changes in Game 2 Canadian defenders were far better than the Soviets. Granted there was a lot more hockey played in the 1970s that I haven't seen.

The Canadian forwards were also stronger in the slot than the Soviet forwards. Yakushev was the only Soviet forward whom the Canadian dmen couldn't fully handle in the slot.

And I would argue that Kharlamov was giving the Canadian defenders (even the better ones) plenty of tough time after game 1 too.

 

[Theokritos]

Those CSKA teams typically ended seasons well ahead of the rest of the league in terms of goals scored, but in the middle of the pack in terms of goals against.

That's an exaggeration. They usually had the fewest goals against in the Soviet league. Sometimes they were #2, but not worse than that.

 

[Sturminator]

That's an exaggeration. They usually had the fewest goals against in the Soviet league. Sometimes they were #2, but not worse than that.

They never really separated themselves from the pack defensively was the point, which they absolutely did do offensively.

 

[Namba 17]

See this is why I asked what your definition of "great" was. If we look at vs.X (which is a better metric to compare offensive ability across eras than point finishes), Barry is your best offensive player, and he has the 40th highest score in the draft. Savard is 63rd, Heatley 93rd, and Goulet is outside the top 100. Disclaimer, vs.X does not take playoffs into account and overly punishes players who miss games. But just to illustrate my point, using that metric, you're saying there's over 100 "great" scorers in the draft. Which is fine if that's how you want to define it, but I don't think it tells us much.

We don't need to see points in vacuum. It can be useful for "top players of all time" project, but not in ATD, where players are taken for specific roles and purposes. I gave you numbers of GOAL scoring finishes for a good reason. Either Barry or Goulet or Heatley in my team are used as main GOAL-scoring threat of their lines. I don't understand HF obsession with VxV (I definitely prefer # of scoring finishes) but even you will use your VxV metrics in term of goals you'll see Goulet as top-15 LW of all time, Heatley - top-20-25 LW and Barry top-15, even top-10 of goal-scoring centers, probably. if they are not great goal-scorers, I don't know what is great to you.
Points consist of goals and assists. I don't need many assists from the players I listed, because I put them with players, who are good to elite passing specialists. Their not that good points VxV just underlines what a great goal-scorers they were.

 

[Namba 17]

Goulet has only 4 top-10s in points, and only 1 top-5.

See my answer to Hawkey Town 18. Points are irrelevant to Goulet in my roster.

I think that's actually where you're getting mixed up. You look at a guy and say "wow, he has 3 top-10s" and rather than actually compare him to the rest of the draft, you just think he's great.

I'll tell you a secret - I don't look at points in ATD at all. I explained why - points are goals + assists. If I have a line, which consists of 3 players with good points numbers, but these numbers came from assists primarily - it will be very weak line OFFENSIVELY, despite that their POINTS numbers will be fine. So, I look at guy and say "wow, he had 6 top-10 goal-scoring finishes - he will be a finisher for my line. Now I need to find a player, who will feed him with a puck. Hmm - this guy has 6 top-10 assists finishes - he will play with my finisher". This is how it works for me.

Where you're looking at all the left wingers who ever played, why is it hard to imagine I could find 25 guys with better accomplishments than that? Two of those 25 are Howe and Heatley if that make you feel better.

Dreakmur, tell me please one thing.
How do you estimate players in ATD if you don't know their data?
First, you said that Kerr was bad ES player and AFTER THAT asked for his ES numbers. Now you ask "why is it hard to imagine". It's not "hard to imagine" it's senseless. Why do we need to "imagine" smth, if we can take facts instead? You said "he is in 25 range" - based on what? You look at my defensive unit and say - it's weak, despite that everybody in it were prized for defensive game - you may find quotes in their bio.
So, I really can't understand what is your opinion based on.

 

[Namba 17]

By the way.
For every VxV fan.
VxV for goals for Bill Mosienko is almost equal (0.5 lesser) to Theo Fleury, 0.7 lesser than Mogilny, Lindros and Kariya, but significantly higher than Patrick Kane, Dale Hawerchuk, Phil Kessel, Bryan Trottier, Martin St. Louis, Peter Stastny etc

 

[jarek]

By the way.
For every VxV fan.
VxV for goals for Bill Mosienko is almost equal (0.5 lesser) to Theo Fleury, 0.7 lesser than Mogilny, Lindros and Kariya, but significantly higher than Patrick Kane, Dale Hawerchuk, Phil Kessel, Bryan Trottier, Martin St. Louis, Peter Stastny etc

Why does this matter? I agree with you that you should try to balance goal scoring and playmaking on a line but points and VsX gives us an idea of the overall offensive value of a player.

For example, yes Mosienko is a better goal scorer than Patrick Kane but Kane is a significantly better player offensively overall

 

[Namba 17]

Why does this matter? I agree with you that you should try to balance goal scoring and playmaking on a line but points and VsX gives us an idea of the overall offensive value of a player.

For example, yes Mosienko is a better goal scorer than Patrick Kane but Kane is a significantly better player offensively overall

Kane is better player if you make "top-100" list. No doubts here.
But if you need smbody, who will score goals for your line, it will be wise to take Mosienko ahead of Kane (if you don't need anything else).

Overall offensive value exists when you just compare player to player without trying to make a team. But in a team it's always goals/assists, not points.
Example.
Bill Cowley, Adam Oates, Martin St.Louis - all have great offensive value in vaccum. Put them into one line and it will be bad line OFFENSIVELY.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'll tell you a secret - I don't look at points in ATD at all.

I do.

I explained why - points are goals + assists.

Points = a players overall scoring impact.

If I have a line, which consists of 3 players with good points numbers, but these numbers came from assists primarily - it will be very weak line OFFENSIVELY, despite that their POINTS numbers will be fine.

It depends on how skewed those players are towards assists, but, yes, theoretically, you could be correct.

Yes, players have to click together. No, you don't need a scorer-passer-mucker. As long as the line can be effective, it doesn't matter how they get the job done.

So, I look at guy and say "wow, he had 6 top-10 goal-scoring finishes - he will be a finisher for my line. Now I need to find a player, who will feed him with a puck. Hmm - this guy has 6 top-10 assists finishes - he will play with my finisher". This is how it works for me.

That's all fine, but you still have to look at them in comparison to all the players who ever played.

How do you estimate players in ATD if you don't know their data?

I use the 7 season vs.X metric as a starting point. Then look at numerous other metrics.

First, you said that Kerr was bad ES player and AFTER THAT asked for his ES numbers.

I didn't ask for his numbers. I asked how effective Kerr will be at even strength. That's a rhetorical question that basically implies that he is going to be bad. As an overall offensive player, he is mediocre, and he was weaker at even strength than he was overall.

You said "he is in 25 range" - based on what?

Simply based on a list of players I rank that is ordered by how I evaluate offense in players.

Let's fire names off the top of my head and see how close I get to 25....
Bobby Hull, Alex Ovechkin, Ted Lindey, Dickie Moore, Frank Mahovlich, Toe Blake, Valeri Kharlamov, Anatoli Firsov, Busher Jackson, Sweeney Schriner, Doug Bentley, Sid Abel, Johnny Bucyk, Nels Stewart, Alex Delvecchio, Roy Conacher, Paul Kariya, Luc Robitaille, Joe Malone, Vladimir Krutov

Syd Howe

Markus Naslund, Paul Thompson, Patrick Elias, Alexander Yakushev, Jamie Benn, John Leclair, Henrick Zetterberg, Keith Tkachuk, Brendan Shanahan

Dany Heatley, Michel Goulet

Did I miss anyone?

edit - yes I did miss some... bolded LOL

You look at my defensive unit and say - it's weak, despite that everybody in it were prized for defensive game - you may find quotes in their bio.

I don't think I even brought up anything outside your 4 forward lines.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Dreakmur]

Kane is better player if you make "top-100" list. No doubts here.
But if you need smbody, who will score goals for your line, it will be wise to take Mosienko ahead of Kane (if you don't need anything else).

Aren't Kane and Mosienko similar as goal-scorers?

 

[jarek]

I do.



Points = a players overall scoring impact.



It depends on how skewed those players are towards assists, but, yes, theoretically, you could be correct.

Yes, players have to click together. No, you don't need a scorer-passer-mucker. As long as the line can be effective, it doesn't matter how they get the job done.



That's all fine, but you still have to look at them in comparison to all the players who ever played.



I use the 7 season vs.X metric as a starting point. Then look at numerous other metrics.



I didn't ask for his numbers. I asked how effective Kerr will be at even strength. That's a rhetorical question that basically implies that he is going to be bad. As an overall offensive player, he is mediocre, and he was weaker at even strength than he was overall.



Simply based on a list of players I rank that is ordered by how I evaluate offense in players.

Let's fire names off the top of my head and see how close I get to 25....
Bobby Hull, Alex Ovechkin, Ted Lindey, Dickie Moore, Frank Mahovlich, Toe Blake, Valeri Kharlamov, Anatoli Firsov, Busher Jackson, Sweeney Schriner, Doug Bentley, Sid Abel, Johnny Bucyk, Nels Stewart, Alex Delvecchio, Roy Conacher, Paul Kariya, Luc Robitaille, Joe Malone, Vladimir Krutov

Syd Howe

Markus Naslund, Paul Thompson, Patrick Elias, Alexander Yakushev, Jamie Benn, John Leclair, Henrick Zetterberg, Keith Tkachuk, Brendan Shanahan

Dany Heatley, Michel Goulet

Did I miss anyone?

edit - yes I did miss some... bolded LOL



I don't think I even brought up anything outside your 4 forward lines.

[/quote][/QUOTE]

I don't see denneny

 

[rmartin65]

Right back at you!

Coaching: I'm not sure how I feel about Tarasov anymore. Chernyshev was the head coach of the national team and I am just not entirely certain how much of the NT success is on him and how much is on Tarasov. Tarasov was said to have worked directly with the players and devised the tactics, but I wonder how he would have done without Chernyshev, who not only acted as a diplomat for the players, but was also said to have been very good at analyzing weaknesses of other teams and use that to beat them? Reay certainly handles the player's coach duties but not sure what other help he can provide Tarasov. Would love to hear some feedback on this.

Leadership: I'm not as big on leadership as most others seem to be, but your group seems fine enough.

I honestly couldn't care less about how the players on the lines rank in a vacuum and right now there's nothing to compare them to so I'll just make a few comments.

Scoring lines: First line has everything you need and then some. I am somewhat concerned about the physicality on the second line though. Stamkos is no shrinking violet, but I wouldn't call him especially physical either, and I don't really understand what makes Gilbert such a good match with him? He played with Jean Ratelle who had a very different offensive game to Stamkos. This year looks promising for Stamkos' ability to play with a different style of offensive player, but it remains to be seen if that will continue.

Checking line/s: Seems you have two checking lines here, which is very important given the league size. There are a lot of 2nd lines that look like 1st lines and you look well equipped to handle that.

Defense: I really like that your defense doesn't have any defensive liabilities. I made it a point myself to make sure I didn't end up with that. Most 3rd pairs here are going to be playing against some high powered lines and the likes of Housley, Ozolinsh, etc. are going to be exposed. One thing that sticks out to me is that your 2nd pair is very light on puck movement. That could be an issue, especially against hard forechecking lines that won't give those two time to clear the zone in an effective manner. They may end up icing the puck a lot which could cost you.

Goaltending: You said it yourself, nothing to write home about. I do like Parent but he doesn't stand out here.

PP: Looks pretty strong, all things considered.

PK: OK so it came up during the draft and I'm going to say it here. Bailey's credentials as a PK'er are well known but his relatively short career as one is a knock against him. I'm not sure that I'd want him on the 1st PK if it can be helped. I also share similar sentiments about Balon. He was a great defensive forward, but how much did he actually PK? You mentioned Davydov on your PK but I don't see him there. Not really sure you need him there with the guys that you've listed though. I'd prefer to leave him off for more well known commodities myself.

Overall you've built another very strong team. Good luck!

Thanks for the review, I'll just make a couple comments in defense of my team.

Coaching: To be honest, I'm not sure I understand your question about Tarasov. Are you saying that he can't analyze opposing teams? I think one of Tarasov's strengths was that he believed in preparation (and initiative) above all else, so I fail to see how he would be unable to gameplan. And as you mentioned, Reay can act as a diplomat between the coaching staff and the players, though I think that need may be overblown- it is cited that Tarasov was widely trusted by his players. I dont think this is a Keenan scenario, by any means.

2nd Line: I wont try to say this line is a physically punishing line, but Abel provides some jam, and as you said, it's not like Stamkos is liable to be intimidated easily. In any case, most of the muscle on my team is based on my defense- each pairing has a guy that can get nasty. As for the Stamkos-Gilbert connection: Gilbert has an interesting rap here for being a shooter, but in fact, he had higher assist finishes than goal finishes (7 top 10 assists vs 5 top 10 goals). With Abel being more of a set-up man himself as well, I see no reason to doubt the chemistry on the line.

2nd Pairing- I think you are underselling Siebert as a puck-mover. He finished top 10 in assists (whole league) 3 times, one of those times being as a defenseman. He was also known as a rusher, so he is also capable of skating the puck out. Goldham has references to his rushing ability as well. I can't tell you how to think, but I am not worried about this pairing's ability to get the puck out of the defensive zone.

PK: I'm not sure what to say here... Bailey certainly has the quotes to justify him as a top unit PKer, while Balon... yeah, actually, I only see one quote on his PKing in his bio. I might have to look into that more, though I will say he has long been used on PK units in the ATD. Worst comes to worst, I throw Mikhailov on the 2nd PK unit, as the recent study showed he was a capable PKer for the CCCP.

 

[Dreakmur]

I don't see denneny

Yep... add him in !

 

[rmartin65]

Ottawa Senators​

Coach: Glen Sather
Assistant Coach: Frank Boucher
Captain: Scott Stevens
Alternates: Gordie Howe, Henri Richard

Forwards
Joe Malone - Darryl Sittler - Gordie Howe (A)
Paul Thompson - Henri Richard (A) - Theo Fleury
Brad Marchand - Neil Colville - Alexander Mogilny
Rusty Crawford - Dave Poulin - Rene Robert
John Tavares, Jack Darragh

Defence
Scott Stevens (C) - Larry Murphy
Babe Pratt - Art Coulter
Glen Harmon - Alex Pietrangelo
Hamby Shore

Goaltender
Vladislav Tretiak
Curtis Joseph

Powerplay

Darryl Sittler - Joe Malone - Alexander Mogilny
Babe Pratt - Gordie Howe

Paul Thompson - Henri Richard - Theo Fleury
Larry Murphy - Rene Robert

Penalty Kill

Rusty Crawford - Dave Poulin - Gordie Howe
Scott Stevens

Brad Marchand - Neil Colville - Theo Fleury
Art Coulter

​

Coaching and Leadership
I'm not sure Sather fits your squad as well as others are saying- wasn't Sather known for his work with the run-and-gun Oilers? Your team is stacked with two-way players. Your on-ice leadership, however, is strong- Stevens is on the shortlist for all-time great captains, and Richard and Howe could arguably be captains elsewhere.

1st Line
This is a nice line, no really notable weaknesses. Sittler is a little over his head as a 1C here, but he works within the line.

2nd Line
I like Richard, I really do- but one of the best all-time ES centers? I think we are getting carried away here. He is very good, and better than his VsX score would indicate, but I think saying that he is a top-5 all-time ES center is going a bit overboard. That said, this is a strong line, which again seems pretty well balanced.

3rd Line
I find it interesting that last year Marchand wasn't even a worthy 4th liner, but this year he is just peachy on the 3rd (though I recognize that you were not one of the ones I was arguing with last year). I dont like this line as much as I do the top 2, mainly because I dont think Colville and Marchand are the right duo to cover for Mogilny when he goes through his IDGAF spells.

4th Line
Meh. Roberts is weak, but Poulin is pretty strong in his role.

1st Pairing
I like the Stevens-Murphy pairing, I think the two would have excellent chemistry. They might each be on the lower end of their roles here, but I think their synergy should make up some of that.

2nd Pairing
Honestly, it seems pretty vanilla to me. I dont have much to say, other than I agree with Sturm that Pratt seems a little over his head here.

3rd Pairing
Pretty solid.

Goalies
I am a big Tretiak fan, so I dig it.

Spares
I dont see anybody that stands out, positively or negatively. Tavares... I keep waiting for him to make that next step, and I dont know if he ever will.

Special Teams
To be honest, I think your PP units are a bit weak (Howe on the point?), and I am undecided on your PK strategy (though, again, I want to point out that last year I had both Marchand and Fleury on PK units, and dealt with some criticism there). I realize that the strategy worked back in the day, but will it work in such a talented league?

3 things I like
1) 2nd line
2) 1st line
3) Tretiak

3 things I don’t like
1) 2nd Pairing
2) PP Units
3) 3rd Line

 

[jarek]

Thanks for the review, I'll just make a couple comments in defense of my team.

Coaching: To be honest, I'm not sure I understand your question about Tarasov. Are you saying that he can't analyze opposing teams? I think one of Tarasov's strengths was that he believed in preparation (and initiative) above all else, so I fail to see how he would be unable to gameplan. And as you mentioned, Reay can act as a diplomat between the coaching staff and the players, though I think that need may be overblown- it is cited that Tarasov was widely trusted by his players. I dont think this is a Keenan scenario, by any means.

2nd Line: I wont try to say this line is a physically punishing line, but Abel provides some jam, and as you said, it's not like Stamkos is liable to be intimidated easily. In any case, most of the muscle on my team is based on my defense- each pairing has a guy that can get nasty. As for the Stamkos-Gilbert connection: Gilbert has an interesting rap here for being a shooter, but in fact, he had higher assist finishes than goal finishes (7 top 10 assists vs 5 top 10 goals). With Abel being more of a set-up man himself as well, I see no reason to doubt the chemistry on the line.

2nd Pairing- I think you are underselling Siebert as a puck-mover. He finished top 10 in assists (whole league) 3 times, one of those times being as a defenseman. He was also known as a rusher, so he is also capable of skating the puck out. Goldham has references to his rushing ability as well. I can't tell you how to think, but I am not worried about this pairing's ability to get the puck out of the defensive zone.

PK: I'm not sure what to say here... Bailey certainly has the quotes to justify him as a top unit PKer, while Balon... yeah, actually, I only see one quote on his PKing in his bio. I might have to look into that more, though I will say he has long been used on PK units in the ATD. Worst comes to worst, I throw Mikhailov on the 2nd PK unit, as the recent study showed he was a capable PKer for the CCCP.

It's not so much that I am doubting Tarasov's abilities as a coach. It's more that I'm just not too sure what Tarasov's true impact on the Soviet hockey monster actually was. Chernyshev seemed to have a bigger role than I once thought.

My issue, though that isn't the right word, is that Gilbert played the best years of his career with a primarily set up man as his center. Stamkos hasn't proven that he is that kind of player, although he's making strides this year for sure. How Gilbert ended up with more assist than goals finishes in that situation, however, I am not sure. Maybe Ratelle is underrated as a goal scorer.

The issue with your 2nd pairing will be clearer once we have some actual comparisons to work with I believe.

My issue with Bailey is career length as a top PK'er. What can you tell us about that?