All-Time Draft #11 Line-Up Assassination Thread

[pitseleh]

Alright, I'm all done:

Nanaimo Clippers

Coach: Art Ross
Captain: Gordie Howe
Alternate Captains: Bert Olmstead, Al MacInnis

Bert Olmstead (a) - Nels Stewart - Gordie Howe (c)
Dean Prentice - Adam Oates - Peter Bondra
Don Marshall - Art Chapman - Tony Leswick
Markus Naslund - Paul Ronty - Andy Hebenton
Billy Reay, Harry Oliver

Bill Gadsby - Al MacInnis (a)
Pat Stapleton - Bill White
Bucko McDonald - Jiri Bubla
Yuri Liapkin

Tony Esposito
Alex Connell


PP1: Bert Olmstead - Nels Stewart - Gordie Howe - Pat Stapleton - Al MacInnis
PP2: Markus Naslund - Adam Oates - Peter Bondra - Bill Gadsby - Jiri Bubla

PK1: Don Marshall - Tony Leswick - Bill Gadsby - Al MacInnis
PK2: Dean Prentice - Art Chapman - Pat Stapleton - Bill White​

 

[Kyle McMahon]

*The classic ATD first line: a deft, skilled, game-breaker for a centre, the smart two-way forward on one wing, and the dominant power forward at right wing. You guys know that I'm a big Neely fan. He's a force. This is going to be a line to reckon with. And I think you can play them against the opposition's best line.
*I think Nystrom's out of place on the second line. Love the guy as an elite third liner. But he's a post-expansion guy with zero point-per-game seasons, and zero finishes in goals, assists and points. He's out of place.
*As for Kovalchuk: he's surly, he's moody. There are some issues there. And his performances when the season is on the line haven't been impressive. (Late in the season in 2005-06 when Atlanta had a shot at the playoffs, and in the 2007 playoffs). I think you picked him too soon, but I think he warrants selection as a second line LW. Kovalchuk-Gilmour combo has the potential to do a lot of damage.
*Solid two-way line. It would look even better with Nystrom there.
*Linseman's probably one of the most offensively dangerous fourth line players in the draft. What bugs me about him is he doesn't finish what he started. And it annoyed his teammates. He was an effective agitator, but eventually his 'mates got sick of cleaning up his battles.
*Applause on reuniting Hitchman-Shore. As I said before, I believe it's better to reunite defence pairings than forward lines. That's going to be a very tough pairing to play against. It might be my favourite pairing in the draft.
*Lester Patrick's a good player to have out there with Ching Johnson. Johnson's a rock, in more ways than one. Mobility is an issue for him. He finds a way to get there, he's smart, but some of the more explosive, intelligent players could cause problems for big Ching. That's why Patrick's a good fit.
*Joe Watson is the perfect No. 7 d-man. He doesn't excel at anything, which is what keeps him from being a top six. But he's good at just about everything, and he has a lot of character.
*I have concerns with your goaltending. Roy Worters is, for my money, the worst No. 1 in the draft. Several back-ups (Rayner, Lehman, Chabot, Vachon) were ahead of Worters on my list. I like Worters as a solid back-up, and you have to be a good guy to not have a mental breakdown playing behind the team he was on, but is he good enough to be an ATD No. 1?
*Roach is a good solid back-up. He's going to be called on to play about 30 games per year.
*I'm a big Jack Adams fan. Had him as a coach in an MLD. He's a tough, demanding tactician. There could issues between Adams and Kovalchuk, but he's going to love guys like Neely, Shore, Hitchman, Lalonde, Howe, Nystrom, Ching and Gilmour.

Thanks for the review. I believe I am going to move Nystrom down to the third line and Smith up to the second as it has now been suggested by you and EB, and after taking a good look at it I tend to agree.

I stand by Worters as a lower-end starter, but still a starter. I would take him over Rayner, Chabot, and Vachon without thinking twice about it. Four top-five finishes in Hart voting (that we know of) in a pretty deep era for goaltenders. Showed the ability to carry miserable teams into the playoffs.

We've discussed Kovalchuk already in the draft thread, but I have no idea where you get that Kovalchuk was a disappointment in the 2007 playoffs. His team got swept, but he was the only Thrasher who showed up to play, the only Thrasher who showed any emotion. He had to take it upon himself to drop the gloves in that series because none of his teammates were willing to. With him being surrounded by the likes of Gilmour, I have no doubt that he'll be ready to give 'er when it's on the line.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

- I would put Alf Smith on the second line and move down Nystrom on the third.
- Wasn't Morris a RW? I never thought he played on the left side.

I have now switched Nystrom and Smith.

Morris was a RW, but I've decided to play him out of position in order to have Murdoch on the third line. Either him or Peirson had to move to the LW, and Morris has been described as a very versatile forward, so I feel completely confident that he can adjust to the shift without much trouble.

 

[Sturminator]

No, it's not, but I should point out that the reason three of those names are still written "******" (one of them is Walsh) is our own shortcomings. All of them were great players who had productive careers.

I'm not sure of that. 1910-11 is about the point where the mists start to get really thick. If you want to cut through them, be my guest.

No, of course it's not the same. As I said above, I don't intend to portray it as such. But it was still a 5th place finish in the top league at the time. It is still worthy of comparison to the 1912-1926 seasons, it's just a weaker year. Cleghorn did beat out Lalonde, Pitre, Russell, Hyland, Dunderdale, and Taylor (who was a defenseman at the time but whom absolutely had hit his stride by then)

You're just dropping names. Of that list, only Pitre was truly in his prime (and playing forward) in 1911, and Pitre was great more for his longevity than for his peak value.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sure of that. 1910-11 is about the point where the mists start to get really thick. If you want to cut through them, be my guest.

One day.

You're just dropping names. Of that list, only Pitre was truly in his prime (and playing forward) in 1911, and Pitre was great more for his longevity than for his peak value.

Sure, it's name-dropping. But we know all those guys had the ability to place high. Lalonde had clearly peaked, you're just not admitting it. Like I said, weaker season, sure, but that doesn't make it a top-20 season. top-10, sure.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Montreal Canadiens

HEAD COACH - Mike Babcock
ASSISTANT COACH - Bun Cook
CAPTAIN - Henri Richard
ALTERNATE CAPTAIN - Tom Johnson
ALTERNATE CAPTAIN - Ed Westfall


Frank Mahovlich - Henri Richard - Teemu Selanne
Alexander Yakushev - Evgeni Malkin - Alexei Kovalev
Don Marcotte - Derek Sanderson - Ed Westfall
Kirk Muller - Pit Martin - Jean Pronovost

Bobby Orr - J.C. Tremblay
Tom Johnson - Ted Harris
Keith Magnuson - Ian Turnbull

Gerry Cheevers
Rogatien Vachon

Marc Tardif
Ziggy Palffy


POWER PLAY UNITS
Mahovlich-Richard-Selanne-Orr-Tremblay
Yakushev-Malkin-Kovalev-Orr-Turnbull

PENALTY KILL UNITS
Sanderson-Westfall-Orr-Harris
Muller-Richard-Johnson-Magnuson​

 

[Sturminator]

One day.

I sincerely hope that you continue to work on it, as will I and I'm sure a number of other GMs. Nevertheless, I don't want to see us get ahead of ourselves. I don't honestly give two ***** about Odie Cleghorn, but it is important to draw lines (however vaguely) where they should be drawn, and I think you were going over one of them. 1910-14 is a hugely important transitional period in hockey history, and I wish I had the resources to give it the close study it deserves. The first true "top leagues" (NHA and PCHA) were formed in 1910 and 1911, respectively, the Cup Challenge era ended in 1914 (beginning the East vs. West Cup era) and a great generation of talent suddenly sprung up in the meantime.

Although I have argued against exactly this point in the past (see a post of mine on Tommy Phillips from ATD#8), I am now of the opinion that hockey took something of a quantum leap forward during this period. That's not to say that there weren't individual greats during the Cup Challenge era (Phillips and Stuart, to name a couple), but the sport seems to have been fairly shallow in terms of great players, as well as badly disorganized and chaotic, both in terms of league and championship play. It was, as we soldiers like to say, a cluster****.

As much as I value statistics, the numbers become increasingly nonsensical the closer we get to 1910. When you start from a quite small pool of high-end talent and end up with a fairly big one, the differences from season-to-season can be quite wide. A single high-end player or two beginning to peak in one season can completely alter the meaning of a top-5/top-10 scoring finish. A huge amount of granularity is needed to really get a handle on what was going on in hockey at that time, and as far as I can tell, you have been glossing this fact over (consciously or not) for the aggrandizement of Odie Cleghorn. You're a better researcher than that.

All this squabbling over a single season's scoring results? Well...yes. And there's a very good reason for it.

Sure, it's name-dropping. But we know all those guys had the ability to place high.

Not outside of their peaks, no.

 

[VanIslander]

you make some strong points sturm

 

[Evil Sather]

Dauphin Kings:

Coach: Mike Keenan

Bill Barber - Bobby Clarke - Tim Kerr
Dave Andreychuk - Eric Lindros - Reggie Leach
Steve Thomas - Bobby Smith - Brian Bellows
Yvon Lambert - Doug Risebrough - Mario Tremblay
Pierre Turgeon, Tomas Sandstrom

Mark Howe - Brad McCrimmon
Derian Hatcher - Adam Foote
Dallas Smith - Phil Housley
Calle Johansson

Bernie Parent
Mike Liut

PP1: Barber-Clarke-Kerr-Howe-Housley
PP2: Andreychuk-Lindros-Bellows-Leach-Housley

PK1: Barber-Clarke-Hatcher-Foote
PK2: Risebrough-Tremblay-McCrimmon-Smith

 

[seventieslord]

I sincerely hope that you continue to work on it, as will I and I'm sure a number of other GMs. Nevertheless, I don't want to see us get ahead of ourselves. I don't honestly give two ***** about Odie Cleghorn, but it is important to draw lines (however vaguely) where they should be drawn, and I think you were going over one of them. 1910-14 is a hugely important transitional period in hockey history, and I wish I had the resources to give it the close study it deserves. The first true "top leagues" (NHA and PCHA) were formed in 1910 and 1911, respectively, the Cup Challenge era ended in 1914 (beginning the East vs. West Cup era) and a great generation of talent suddenly sprung up in the meantime.

Although I have argued against exactly this point in the past (see a post of mine on Tommy Phillips from ATD#8), I am now of the opinion that hockey took something of a quantum leap forward during this period. That's not to say that there weren't individual greats during the Cup Challenge era (Phillips and Stuart, to name a couple), but the sport seems to have been fairly shallow in terms of great players, as well as badly disorganized and chaotic, both in terms of league and championship play. It was, as we soldiers like to say, a cluster****.

As much as I value statistics, the numbers become increasingly nonsensical the closer we get to 1910. When you start from a quite small pool of high-end talent and end up with a fairly big one, the differences from season-to-season can be quite wide. A single high-end player or two beginning to peak in one season can completely alter the meaning of a top-5/top-10 scoring finish. A huge amount of granularity is needed to really get a handle on what was going on in hockey at that time, and as far as I can tell, you have been glossing this fact over (consciously or not) for the aggrandizement of Odie Cleghorn. You're a better researcher than that.

All this squabbling over a single season's scoring results? Well...yes. And there's a very good reason for it.

Not outside of their peaks, no.

Fair comments. But the talent was always there before 1910. We just, as a group, haven't done enough research into it. Understanding and accepting that short careers for superstars like those of Phillips, Stuart, McGee, Ernie & Blair Russell, Walsh, and Bowie were more of a rule than an exception, is a big step towards appreciating that era. While some "automatic era adjustment" clearly needs to be done, many of us still take players who weren't among the top-20 of their time and stick them on first lines and then question the validity of one of the three brightest offensive stars of 1900-1910 as a second liner and make another merely a spare. The draft records of players like these, as well as the comments made afterwards and the final dispositions of their teams, has a lot to do with shaping peoples' perceptions of these players. It becomes "ATD canon" that these players belong in the 300-600 range. Then when we talk about that era it becomes easy to say it wasn't that great because, look, the best player was Bowie, a guy we take in the 500 range as a 13th forward, and you have McGee and Phillips, who get taken 250-350 usually. It's mostly circular logic. It's not helped by the fact that for the most part, we see the end of one generation and the start of another, around that 1909-1912 point, giving the impression that this older crowd just couldn't hang with the new boys.

Not too long ago, 1910-1926 wasn't properly appreciated. It's almost there now. The decade before that is the next step. We are getting there, buit very slowly. It was a clusterf***, but sense can be made of it, and the very best players of that time are far more important to the history of hockey than many players selected before them. But, you know what they say about The Devil You Know. Do I expect that we will ever see a perfect distribution of players from each decade among the top-200 picks one day? No. I hope we don't - it doesn't work that way. But what our most recent draft list implies, is that of the 200 "best/best relative to their peers/most significant to hockey history" - which this is supposed to be about - 71 of them played hockey during the 1980s and none of them peaked before 1910. And that's just wrong. So if I overvalue some early years, so be it. Most of us do the exact opposite.

I will continue to research and put things into context from before 1910. It won't be easy, and a lot of people won't like what I find. Some will want to just believe that it can't be made sense of at all, and we should not even try. They'll dismiss it as useless.
------------------------------------------------------

As for Cleghorn... Like I said, 1911 is a weaker season. Considering it on par would be like sort of like considering a WW2 year at par. But it can't be completely discredited either. The disconnect in talent level is there, I just don't see how it's as big as you say.

You said it was just name dropping, but one thing that I didn't point out earlier is that Cleghorn was younger than all these guys - a lot younger than some of them. He's an 1891 birthday. Look at the others he was ahead of:

Lalonde - 1887
Pitre - 1883
Darragh - 1890
Russell - 1883
Dunderdale - 1887
Hyland - 1889
Taylor - 1885
Malone - 1890

He was 19, outscoring a 20-year old Malone and Darragh, 21-year old Hyland, 23-year old Lalonde and Dunderdale, 25-year old Taylor (yes, a defenseman), and and 27-year old Pitre and Russell. You can say some guys weren't in their primes yet and though I don't agree in a couple of cases, Cleghorn wasn't in his prime either - he was even further from it, and he outscored them. This counts for something.

Cleghorn doesn't need the 1911 season to look good. He looks great already. But I wouldn't want to see that season "taken away" from him for unfair reasons either.

 

[hfboardsuser]

*Incidentally, Espo needs a letter. He's one of the best leaders in the draft. Top 10 leaders ever IMO. Top 15 at worst.

Thanks, I'll bestow one on him.

I don't buy into Toppazzini in that role. His numbers are good for the O6 era. But no top 10 finishes in goals, assists or points. I want my second line guys to have evidence they can contribute offensively. And Rick Middleton would look really, really awesome on that line.

*I can understand why you want Middleton on that line - a really gifted two-way presence to give you a credible third scoring line. But I think it comes at the detriment of the second line. We had MacLeish and Topper on our third line last draft. It worked well. Maloney would fit nicely into that role.

Bucyk-Federko-Middleton would be an interesting line, for sure. And I did notice you had Topper and the MacLeish together last time. On Maloney, which role are you referring to?

Do you go Middleton second line, Davidson third and Topper fourth? There's a thought.

That certainly is. Davidson's power game and known goal-scoring ability might work next to MacLeish, although will there be enough playmaking to go around?

One question: is Frank Boucher needed as an assistant coach? I like Boucher. (I'd damn well better. He's our first line centre). But not a fan of assistants in the ATD, unless I feel one is needed. Wouldn't get one if I had Badger Bob behind the bench.

I wasn't sure here. He always seems to go late, and I wondered if it was because he lacked a more strategic coach that could assess opposing teams and game plans. Boucher was an innovative coach who always got the best out of what limited talent he had.

*You'll probably need to play run-and-gun to win. Fine with your coach. I doubt you'll be trying a lot of line-matching. Just go scoring line against scoring line, don't worry about line-matching, and give your fourth liners 10-12 minutes per night.

Johnson's suited to that style, so you're probably right. He has the horses, both in a franchise talent and in depth through the top three lines and on D.

So...

Captain: Butch Bouchard
Alternates: Johnny Bucyk, Phil Esposito

W. Cashman-P. Esposito-K. Hodge
J. Bucyk-B. Federko-R. Middleton
D. Maloney-R. MacLeish-A. Davidson
J. Wilson-R. Meagher-J. Toppazzini
P. Mondu

B. Park-E. Bouchard
B. Leetch-C. Huddy
M. Grant-D. Barkley
D. Awrey

G. Vezina
A. Rollins

I really wish I had finisher to round out the second line, but oh well.

 

[Spitfire11]

GBC, awesome job with all the team reviews. Great reads as always.

I'll try to get my own roster/review posted by tonight. My POS cable has been out for over a day now.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Kenora Thistles review...

Kenora Thistles review…

*Obvious applause for bringing all the Oilers together for this draft. Obviously, this will be a lethal offensive team. (Trinec and Kimberley are the only teams I’ve reviewed that can score as much as Kenora). When you can land three key players, plus the coaches from a dynasty, you’re in great shape.
*I think this is the first time we’ve seen Messier as an LW since I’ve been part of the draft. It’s an option that guys have had, but nobody, to my knowledge, has ever pulled the trigger. But with Gretz and Dionne there, you had to play Moose at LW.
*Gretzky should be the captain ahead of Messier. Gretz was the captain of the Oilers dynasty. Not Messier. And I do believe that Gretz is the better leader.
*That’s a very, very dangerous first line that will rate among the top-scoring lines in the draft. Pappy’s smiling knowing that you have Hedberg on the first line. (Although I do believe Mullen is the better player).
*Dionne and Mullen will provide a lot of offence from the second line. Hull’s a good two-way presence for that unit, and he’s a great locker room presence, too. Funniest man alive. I don’t know if this line has the strong physical presence that it needs to really succeed, though. Would Mullen-MacLean-Hedberg be better for the RW spots? (Hedberg and Mullen, of course, are better offensive players than MacLean, but MacLean might suit that second line). On the flip side, would Hull and MacLean be good as wingers for Dionne?
*Third line will score. No doubt of that. It can be a real asset to have a strong scoring third line. If you keep MacLean on that line, it’ll have a good physical dimension, too. Frederickson can hold his own physically.
*Good fourth line. Gretzky raved about the trouble that Kasper gave him.
*Potential trouble area: Vic Hatfield as a 13th forward. This is why I talk about the need for character in the 13th forward spot. When Hatfield was a healthy scratch in 72, because he couldn’t keep up with the Soviets, he sulked, and he quit the team. Not the kind of guy I want for a 13th forward.
*Each defence pairing teams a highly-skilled defenceman with a defensive guy. I’m not necessarily a fan of the strategy – for the most part, I want my top two defencemen together. But it means that you have a defenceman on each pairing capable of quickly advancing the puck on the transition game.
*Do I buy Ramsey as a legit top pairing defenceman? Not at all. He might be the worst top-pairing guy I’ve seen so far. Do I think he’s an okay steady defenceman for Coffey? Yeah. But this is where your early trade-ups hurt your team.
*Do I have concerns about the level of competition for Solugobov and Svedberg? Yes. (Sorry, guys, but the World Championships have never done much for me). But you can’t deny their skills and their creativity.
*Randy Gregg’s a steady guy for the blue-line. Would like to see somebody with a little more all-round presence for your No. 7 defenceman, someone who can slide into any role, but Gregg will do.
*Tiny Thompson is a good No. 1 goalie in the ATD. Not an elite guy. But a good player. He won’t hurt you. He’s a workhorse who missed five games in a 10-year span. And he was a four-time all-star and a four-time wins leader. He’s going to need to be a workhorse, because playing behind this Kenora team, he’ll be busy.
*As stated before, you deserve props for getting Sather and Muckler together with the Oilers reunion tour. Sather’s one of the best second-tier coaches. You’ve got his kind of team. He’s with players he’s familiar with. That’s important.

i know present the completed kenora thistles...have at it

Kenora Thistles
1907 Stanley Cup Champions

Home Rink: Thistle Rink (1920), Kenora, Ontario
GM's: papershoes
Coach: Glen Sather
Assistant Coach: John Muckler
Captain: Mark Messier
Alternates: Wayne Gretzky, Viktor Kuzkin, Mike Ramsey

#11 Mark Messier (C) - #99 Wayne Gretzky (A) - #15 Anders Hedberg
#10 Dennis Hull - #16 Marcel Dionne - #7 Joe Mullen
Tommy Smith - #8! Frank Frederickson - #51 Paul MacLean
#13! Johnny Sorrell - #12 Steve Kasper - #17 Mike Foligno
extras: #22 Vic Hadfield

#77 Paul Coffey - #5 Mike Ramsey(A)
#2 Nikolai Sologubov - #4 Viktor Kuzkin (A)
#55 Lennart Svedberg - #24 Bob Turner
extra: #21 Randy Gregg

#1 Tiny Thompson
John Hutton​

Power play units:
PP1: Mark Messier - Wayne Gretzky - Anders Hedberg - Paul Coffey - Lennart Svedberg
PP2: Tommy Smith - Marcel Dionne - Joe Mullen - Nikolai Sologubov - Viktor Kuzkin


Penalty killing units:
PK1: Mark Messier - Wayne Gretzky - Paul Coffey - Nikolai Sologubov
PK2: Steve Kasper - Joe Mullen - Viktor Kuzkin - Mike Ramsey
PK3: Johnny Sorrell - Mike Foligno - Bob Turner - Nikolai Sologubov

 

[God Bless Canada]

Trail Smoke Eaters review…

*Props for reuniting two-thirds of the Trio Grande line. You want to win? Get guys who won while playing together. Bottom line: Gillies and Bossy each have four rings.
*I’m not sold on Keon as a first-line playmaking centre. I think the world of Keon. I love his leadership and hockey sense. He’s right up there with guys like Schmidt and Clarke and Henri Richard for the best defensive centres in the draft. Is he the guy to play with Gillies and Bossy? I’m not certain on that one. Never a top 10 in assists. Nothing that stands out in terms of assists. Some of it might be circumstantial – he was playing for Punch Imlach. Would he have collected more assists if he didn’t play for Imlach? Probably. But his assist totals post-Imlach/post-expansion weren’t eye-popping, either.
*Dangerous second line. In more way than one. All three guys on that line are tough and skilled. It’s probably one of the toughest second lines in the draft. I like Keats as a rugged second line guy. We know what pappy thinks of Litzenberger. Steroid concerns dog Krutov, but I don’t think he was the only Soviet from that time (or player in the ATD) who juiced.
*I rate Claude Provost as the best third line RW in the draft. Put him with Keon, and you have one of the best third lines in ATD history since we expanded to 28 teams. Troy Murray’s okay, though. Balon gives this line some serious grit. It’s also a very fast third line.
*I would characterize the fourth line as a third scoring line. It doesn’t strike me as a line that’s going to be overly good defensively, although Robert is very good in his own zone. Don’t know if we can say the same thing for Simmer. But it’s a line that will get goals.
*Ray Getlieffe is an awesome 13th forward. Glad he finally cracked a 28-team ATD. A very smart two-way forward who can play multiple positions. Can’t do much better than that for 13.
*As mentioned earlier, this team doesn’t have a natch for a No. 1 defenceman. But it has a very good No. 2, and it has excellent depth. I believe VCL and Speaker had Langway and Wilson as their top two last draft. *Moose Vasko’s a guy who is much more valuable in the ATD than some of his numbers and accomplishments would indicate. There just aren’t many big defencemen with really good mobility and a strong all-round game. That’s why he’s so valuable. You can play him against anybody.
*So who wants to play against Langway or Vasko for most shifts at five-on-five?
*It’s maybe the one team in the draft where the top defenceman (Langway) is also probably the one with the least ability to contribute offensively.
*Normally you wouldn’t see a team with pappy’s name on it pick a goalie early. But who can pass up Sawchuk in the second round? Some still regard Sawchuk as the best ever. He’s No. 3 on my list. So you need a good guy goalie who can accept a limited role. Hodge will do that.
*This team also has one of the best coaches in the draft in Dick Irvin. Nobody’s been to the Stanley Cup final more often. And few can match Irvin’s four Cup rings.

Here are this year's Smokies with our regular season line-up. Things could change to a more traditional two scoring lines set-up depending on the playoff opponent:

Home Rink: Cominco Arena
GM: Shawn Mullin and pappyline
Coach: Dick Irvin Sr.
Assistant Coach: Claude Ruel
Captain: Dave Keon
Alternate Captain: Doug Wilson
Alternate Captain: Ed Litzenberger

LW Clark Gillies - C Dave Keon - RW Mike Bossy
LW Vladimir Krutov - C Duke Keats - RW Ed Litzenberger
LW Dave Balon - C Troy Murray - RW Claude Provost
LW Charlie Simmer - C Ulf Nilsson - RW Rene Robert

D Rod Langway - D Doug Wilson
D Moose Vasko - D Neil Colville
D Reijo Ruotsalainen - D Gary Bergman

G Terry Sawchuk
G Charlie Hodge

Extras: C/LW Ray Getliffe, Behn Wilson

PP Unit 1: Simmer-Keon-Bossy-Wilson-Ruotsalainen
PP Unit 2: Krutov-Nilsson-Litzenberger-Colville-Robert
PP Unit 3: Gillies-Keats-Provost-Wilson-Ruotsalainen

PK Unit 1: Keon-Provost-Langway-Vasko
PK Unit 2: Murray-Gillies-Wilson-Bergman
PK Unit 3: Keats-Balon-Langway-Vasko
​

 

[Jungosi]

NEW WESTMINSTER BRUINS
1977 and 1978 Memorial Cup Champions
Co-GMs: raleh and God Bless Canada
Coach: Hector "Toe" Blake
Captain: Aubrey "Dit" Clapper
Alternate Captain: Maurice "Rocket" Richard
Alternate Captain: Carl Brewer
Alternate Captain: Terry O'Reilly​

Fred "Bun" Cook-Frank Boucher-Maurice "Rocket" Richard
Kevin Stevens-Pat Lafontaine-Theoren Fleury
Ross Lonsberry-Butch Goring-Trevor Linden
Vic Stasiuk-Bob Bourne-Terry O'Reilly
Bill Hay​

Aubrey "Dit" Clapper-Carl Brewer
Doug "Diesel" Mohns-Dollard St. Laurent
Ron Greschner-Steve Smith
George Owen
Pekka Rautakallio​

Charlie Gardiner
Glenn "Chico" Resch​

Power play units:
Stevens-Boucher-Richard-Clapper-Mohns
Cook-Lafontaine-Fleury-Brewer-Greschner

Penalty killing units:
Lonsberry-Goring-Clapper-Brewer
Stasiuk-Bourne-Mohns-St. Laurent
Cook-Boucher-Greschner-Smith
Fleury-Linden-Clapper-Brewer​

First off , thanks a lot for the review of my team GBC. A great read as usual and much appreciated.

Here some thoughts of mine concerning the NW Bruins :

* This first line is just mean. I really like the way it is built. A playmaker and fine defensive player in Boucher , one of the best goal-scorers in history with Richard and a grittty, grinding yet skilled forward in Bun Cook who also offers some chemistry with Boucher. It is a bit like a Bread Line on crack if we assume that Richard and Boucher develope chemistry (They obviously would/will).

* A lot of grit on your second line. I always have to think of the Nike Goalie commercial from the 90's when I hear Fleury. His story is saddening but people tend to forget how good of a player he was. Always came to play in the post-season. Stevens is also an interesting case. Some people argue that he can't produce without Mario , I think he can. Especially since his center Lafontaine isn't exactly slouch. I think the "lack" of playmaking arrbez pointed out is valid but I think with Fleury at the right wing it's fine.

* As usual your bottom-6 delivers a huge load of grit and playoff prowess. I love the Bourne/O'Reilly and the Goring/Linden pairs. What I miss personally is a real checking line. Each guy is responsable defensiveley but I prefer a line that is just designed to keep the opponent from scoring. It is a personal decision though and I can see a lot of arguements speaking both for and against it.

* Your first pairing is great. I am not a huge fan of Clapper but you can't deny that he was a fine defenseman. Brewer is a great partner for him. Your second pairing isn't overwhelming but certainly gets the job done as well as your third paring does.

* Gardiner is one of my favourite goalies. One of the most tragic figures in hockey history. His carreer was short but phenomenal. Goaltending won't hurt you a bit.

* Blake is in my eyes the 3rd greatest coach ever. No need for commenting on him. Won't be outcoached by anyone.

* Overall a fine entry with no glaring weakness. A devastating first line, sound secondary scoring , a lot of grit , a fine defense and an awesome coach.

 

[shawnmullin]

Thanks for the review GBC. The fourth line FYI is meant as a third scoring line. That's certainly the regular season strategy. Three scoring lines but all with guys who have a defensive pressence. In the playoffs we may move things around depending on who we're matched up against. If we feel we need two more defensive lines we can change guys around and bring Getlieffe in.

We knew drafting Sawchuk after we got Bossy would mean that we don't have a top end #1 D, but as you said we then tried to build strong depth on the back end. It won't be carried by one guy, although the Langway/Wilson pairing to me is quite strong. That being said, a strong group with depth in front of Sawchuk is going to make life difficult for others.

As for Keon as the #1 C, do others not feel he'd work well with Gillies and Bossy? I felt the line would be a very good match up in a strength vs. strength kind of way given their defensive pressence and the fact that all three can be explosive offensively.

We could conceivably have Nilsson playing on the top line due to his playmaking abilities, but I think Keon brings more to the table and certainly had the offensive chops to create plays for linemates like tihs.

 

[Sturminator]

He was 19, outscoring a 20-year old Malone and Darragh, 21-year old Hyland, 23-year old Lalonde and Dunderdale, 25-year old Taylor (yes, a defenseman), and and 27-year old Pitre and Russell. You can say some guys weren't in their primes yet and though I don't agree in a couple of cases, Cleghorn wasn't in his prime either - he was even further from it, and he outscored them. This counts for something.

Age and peak are seperate issues, as Bill Cook, Johnny Bower and Sergei Fedorov can attest.

Cleghorn doesn't need the 1911 season to look good. He looks great already.

I agree. Cleghorn is certainly a viable second liner.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Fair comments. But the talent was always there before 1910. We just, as a group, haven't done enough research into it. Understanding and accepting that short careers for superstars like those of Phillips, Stuart, McGee, Ernie & Blair Russell, Walsh, and Bowie were more of a rule than an exception, is a big step towards appreciating that era. While some "automatic era adjustment" clearly needs to be done, many of us still take players who weren't among the top-20 of their time and stick them on first lines and then question the validity of one of the three brightest offensive stars of 1900-1910 as a second liner and make another merely a spare. The draft records of players like these, as well as the comments made afterwards and the final dispositions of their teams, has a lot to do with shaping peoples' perceptions of these players. It becomes "ATD canon" that these players belong in the 300-600 range. Then when we talk about that era it becomes easy to say it wasn't that great because, look, the best player was Bowie, a guy we take in the 500 range as a 13th forward, and you have McGee and Phillips, who get taken 250-350 usually. It's mostly circular logic. It's not helped by the fact that for the most part, we see the end of one generation and the start of another, around that 1909-1912 point, giving the impression that this older crowd just couldn't hang with the new boys.

Not too long ago, 1910-1926 wasn't properly appreciated. It's almost there now. The decade before that is the next step. We are getting there, buit very slowly. It was a clusterf***, but sense can be made of it, and the very best players of that time are far more important to the history of hockey than many players selected before them. But, you know what they say about The Devil You Know. Do I expect that we will ever see a perfect distribution of players from each decade among the top-200 picks one day? No. I hope we don't - it doesn't work that way. But what our most recent draft list implies, is that of the 200 "best/best relative to their peers/most significant to hockey history" - which this is supposed to be about - 71 of them played hockey during the 1980s and none of them peaked before 1910. And that's just wrong. So if I overvalue some early years, so be it. Most of us do the exact opposite.

I will continue to research and put things into context from before 1910. It won't be easy, and a lot of people won't like what I find. Some will want to just believe that it can't be made sense of at all, and we should not even try. They'll dismiss it as useless.

Great post, and I really appreciate all the work you've done lately to help people start to put aside their biases against pre-'26 players.

The bolded point is crucial. Bowie won five scoring titles, there is little doubt that he was the most accomplished offensive player of the early 1900's, and Phillips was called the best player in the world at the time by more than a few people. And as you say, they are questioned as second line material while a borderline HOFer like Clark Gillies (random example, no criticism intended) is seen as a worthy top line player.

To use my Weldy Young pick (and admittedly it was probably my worst pick) as an example, why should it seem like such a reach to take him in the 500's while a Craig Ludwig (again, random example) is seen as a good pickup in the 300's? One was one the top defenders in the game during his time, the other was a second pairing guy on his own team in a 21-30 team era.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Thanks for the takes, Jungo. A few quick responses:

*I think we can play our third line against an opponent's top line and come out even. I think we can play our fourth line against an opponent's top line, and do okay, or play them against a second line, and come out even. One thing that works in our favour is we have a front line that we can play against an opponent's top line.

I'm not a big fan of line matching. I want to get my top defence pairing out there against an opponent's top line as much as possible, and with Clapper and Brewer, I think we're in great shape in that regard. (I can't believe that there are people who aren't sold on Clapper. The guy is one of the top 15 or so defencemen of all-time, IMO, and one of the most valuable players in the draft). But if you line match, it means that your third line is out there more than you want, and it comes at the expense of your other lines. It also leaves you open to too many men situations. And when you have a first line centred by Frank Boucher, it means you can play a top line against the opposition's best.

*And I want third and fourth lines that can get a few goals in a best-of-seven. I'm not expecting Goring to win playoff MVP, or Bourne to score at a 100-point clip, or Linden to score at a point-per-game clip in the playoffs. But it is comforting to know that they can get a few goals each in a series, and they can be even players, or close to even players.

*As I said before, Lafontaine was victimized by a poor supporting cast on the wings in Long Island, injuries early in his Buffalo years, and injuries and a poor supporting cast late in his Buffalo years. He did the best he could, but few centres in the draft could put up big assist totals feeding the puck to Mikko Makela and early in his career Derek King. If Lafontaine had Theo's supporting class, Lafontaine would have been a perennial top five or top 10 guy for assists. Lafontaine's not passing to guys who should be on a third or fourth line, or to injury prone players, or to guys who weren't at their peak yet. He's passing to Theo and Stevens.

*I don't think Stevens was a reflection of Mario. When Mario missed half the year in 1990-91, Stevens topped 40 goals and he was a second-team all-star. When Mario missed half the year in 1993-94, Stevens topped 40 goals again. (And that was after the horrific face injury suffered in the 1993 playoffs). And Stevens was a point-per-game player in the lockout year, when Mario sat out. (Granted, small sample size, as Stevens missed about 20 games).

First off , thanks a lot for the review of my team GBC. A great read as usual and much appreciated.

Here some thoughts of mine concerning the NW Bruins :

* This first line is just mean. I really like the way it is built. A playmaker and fine defensive player in Boucher , one of the best goal-scorers in history with Richard and a grittty, grinding yet skilled forward in Bun Cook who also offers some chemistry with Boucher. It is a bit like a Bread Line on crack if we assume that Richard and Boucher develope chemistry (They obviously would/will).

* A lot of grit on your second line. I always have to think of the Nike Goalie commercial from the 90's when I hear Fleury. His story is saddening but people tend to forget how good of a player he was. Always came to play in the post-season. Stevens is also an interesting case. Some people argue that he can't produce without Mario , I think he can. Especially since his center Lafontaine isn't exactly slouch. I think the "lack" of playmaking arrbez pointed out is valid but I think with Fleury at the right wing it's fine.

* As usual your bottom-6 delivers a huge load of grit and playoff prowess. I love the Bourne/O'Reilly and the Goring/Linden pairs. What I miss personally is a real checking line. Each guy is responsable defensiveley but I prefer a line that is just designed to keep the opponent from scoring. It is a personal decision though and I can see a lot of arguements speaking both for and against it.

* Your first pairing is great. I am not a huge fan of Clapper but you can't deny that he was a fine defenseman. Brewer is a great partner for him. Your second pairing isn't overwhelming but certainly gets the job done as well as your third paring does.

* Gardiner is one of my favourite goalies. One of the most tragic figures in hockey history. His carreer was short but phenomenal. Goaltending won't hurt you a bit.

* Blake is in my eyes the 3rd greatest coach ever. No need for commenting on him. Won't be outcoached by anyone.

* Overall a fine entry with no glaring weakness. A devastating first line, sound secondary scoring , a lot of grit , a fine defense and an awesome coach.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Thunder Bay Twins

GMs: VanIslander & Hockey Outsider
Coach: Billy Reay

Roy Conacher - Bill Cowley - Alexander Maltsev
Paul Kariya - Mike Modano - Daniel Alfredsson
Adam Graves - Phil Goyette - Bobby Rousseau
Louis Berlinquette - John Madden - Martin St. Louis
Milan Novy, Tumba Johansson

Chris Pronger - Nicklas Lidstrom
Sergei Zubov - Gary Suter
Ulf Samuelsson - Bill Hajt
Steve Duchesne

Ken Dryden
Andy Moog​

Captain: Lidstrom
Alternates: Graves, Conacher

PP1: Conacher - Cowley - Maltsev - Pronger - Lidstrom
PP2: Kariya - Modano - Alfredsson - Zubov - Suter
Others capable of PP time: Graves, Rousseau, St. Louis, Novy*, Duchense*

PK1: Madden - St. Louis - Hajt- Lidstrom
PK2: Goyette - Berlinquette - Zubov - Suter
Other capable of PK time: Modano, Alfredsson, Pronger, Samuelson

This is our regular season roster. It may be adjusted depending on our playoff opponent.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Thunder Bay Twins review...

*Yes, you did fulfill your promise from ATD 10: a trade-free draft. It was better this way, wasn't it. I was skeptical - hey, I'm a reporter, I'm supposed to be skeptical when I think I smell baloney - but you did it.
*And it helps when you have HO as your tag team partner. I once referred to pitseleh as (paraphrase) "As that kid in science class who everyone wants to work with, because you know you'll get an A. He does all the work. You share the grade." (I was the guy leaning on the smart kid). Anyways, HO also fits the really smart kid in science class mantra.
*Anyways, on to the review...
*Did Conacher and Cowley play together in Boston? I'm guessing they did. Cowley the dynamic playmaker and Conacher the young goal-scorer. Don't buy into baloney that Cowley is a product of the war years. And if Cowley falters, Maltsev's a heck of a playmaker, too.
*Conacher's one of the players that the veteran's committee got right. If you can led the NHL in goals once, and finish second four times, you should be in the HHOF. Remarkably, he was inducted in the Veteran's commitee's final year. He also became a pretty nifty playmaker late in his career while playing alongside Doug Bentley in Chicago.
*The second line is dangerous, too. The speed of Kariya and Modano will be very tough to contain. Kariya + Modano on a 2-on-1 would mean a panic attack for opposing defencemen. Alfredsson brings a good scorer's touch, an excellent work ethic and an ability to work the boards.
*If I have a concern, it's a lack of toughness on the first two lines. There isn't a really strong physical presence on either line. A guy like Alfredsson will muck along the boards and finish his checks. But against a tandem like Harvey-Day, or Robinson-Pratt - pairings with toughness and the ability to keep up with the speed - there could be some problems.
*The third line definitely has a physical presence with Adam Graves. Rousseau and Goyette are very smart, very fast, two-way players.
*I'd actually be tempted to go with Goyette on the fourth line, and move Madden up to the third. For one, I think Madden is the better defensive player. For another, I'm not certain how much production you'll get from that fourth line. Madden doesn't have much of a track record offensively. Neither does Berlinquette. (Sorry, but those top 10 seasons in assists don't do it for me. For a variety of reasons). Put Goyette on that fourth line, and lean on Berlinquette to open up room, that line has excellent offensive ability for a fourth line, while not compromising their defensive coverage.
*The first pairing is one of the most terrifying in the draft. Call it the Naughty and Nice pairing. They're also two of the defining players of their generation. That means a lot to me. Every scout will spend the next 10-20 years looking for the next Lidstrom or the next Pronger. You hear a scout foolishly label a defenceman the next Pronger each draft. And then it doesn't materialize. People can't allow their personal feelings of Pronger cloud their judgements of him. As for Lidstrom, I don't think anyone has anything negative to say about him as a player or as a person.
*I actually think Pronger at his best (1999-2000 season, 2006 and 2007 playoffs) was actually better than Lidstrom at his best. It's just we've seen so much more of Lidstrom at his best than Pronger at his best. Of all of Lidstrom's strengths, durability and consistency might be the biggest. Two No. 1 defencemen. You can't beat that.
*I think Suter's better than Zubov. A better all-round defenceman. Zubov's better offensively, and he's one of the best ever at keeping the puck in at the point. But Suter's all-round game is what separates them. If we didn't get Mohns in eight, we would have gone with Suter.
*Very solid third pairing. Samuelsson's another guy who receives clouded judgements. When he wasn't playing dirty, and when he wasn't finishing what he started (which actually bugs me more than the dirty play), he was one of the best defensive defencemen in the league. But nobody gives him credit for it because he was dirty and he turtled. Hajt's steady. Absolutely nothing flashy about him. But you can put him out there against the oppostion's best, on a somewhat consistent basis, and he'll be fine.
*In terms of personnel, this is as good as any defence in the draft. I'd say it's better than LL's, and LL went defence with five of his first seven picks.
*My only concern is with your No. 7. Steve Duchesne. For a couple reasons. One, he's redundent. With the skill you have on your blue-line, you don't need a guy like Duchesne. And if you wanted a puck-mover, there were some out there who brought more to the table than Duchesne. The other is character. For most of his career, he was a malcontent. He played on several teams who couldn't wait to get rid of him. That's not the guy I want as a No. 7.
*Goaltending's terrific. One of the best 1-2 punches in the league. I feel bad for Andy Moog: he deserves better than the limited back-up work load he'll get playing behind VanI's boyhood hockey hero. (As I said before, you can't put a price on that).
*Quote time from the funniest man alive (Dennis Hull): "Billy Reay was the only coach I ever played for. I had other coaches, but I didn't play for them." You guys got lucky. Reay should have been picked before some of the other coaches. (Jacques Demers, anyone?) Good second-tier coach.
*It's an excellent entry. There isn't anybody out of place. There isn't a second line winger who should be on the fourth line, a No. 2 defenceman who should be a No. 3 or a No. 4. Only concerns I have are a lack of a physical presence on the top two lines, and the No. 7 defenceman issue.

I did it GBC, a tradeless draft as promised, with help from a co-GM to keep me on the straight and narrow.

Thunder Bay Twins

GMs: VanIslander & Hockey Outsider
Coach: Billy Reay

Roy Conacher - Bill Cowley - Alexander Maltsev
Paul Kariya - Mike Modano - Daniel Alfredsson
Adam Graves - Phil Goyette - Bobby Rousseau
Louis Berlinquette - John Madden - Martin St. Louis
Milan Novy, Tumba Johansson

Chris Pronger - Nicklas Lidstrom
Sergei Zubov - Gary Suter
Ulf Samuelsson - Bill Hajt
Steve Duchesne

Ken Dryden
Andy Moog​

 

[God Bless Canada]

Team Soviet Union review...

*Wiser didn't finish his team off today, so I'm going to review the Soviet Union entry instead.
*Apps and Bure has the potential to be one of the most explosive combos in the draft. I can't stand Bure. Bure cares about Bure. Which could lead to an interesting dynamic with Hap Day. (More on that later). But I've never seen anyone who simply had a greater desire to score goals more than Bure. Ovechkin loves scoring. Bure wants to score. And setting him up is one of the best playmaking centres, and one of the best offensive players, in the draft in Syl Apps.
*I don't know if Woody Dumart is cut out for first line duty. Great player. One of the best defensive wingers in the draft. But do I believe in him as a first liner? No. Do I believe in Anatoli Firsov as a first-line winger? Yes. Dumart doesn't bring the physical dimension that this line needs, either, so you might as well put Firsov there and try to outgun your opponents.
*I can't believe you passed up a chance to reunite Bure and Fedorov. That would be a spectacle to watch. Until they start fighting over Anna. (I'd probably fight with my best friend over Anna, too, for what it's worth). Dino gives that line the physical presence it needs. One of the best players in front of the net in the draft.
*The third line is solid. Not great. But solid. You can safely throw it out there against the opposition's best players. Although if you have Fedorov and Dumart on the same line, they'll be better defensively than your third line. Or your fourth line, for that matter.
*I'm a big Thomas Steen fan. Love his skill, grit and leadership. Perfect guy for a fourth line centre. One day I'll get him. Bengt-Ake Gustafsson is a very smart player for that fourth line. Doesn't bring the toughness I want in a fourth line player. But he's very smart and very reliable.
*Defence is solid. I don't know if there's an ace No. 1 in that group. Vasiliev is very high on my list for No. 2's. A No. 1? Not convinced. But he's not out of place.
*I've always thought that Konstantinov goes way too soon. I can see him as a decent No. 3 or an elite No. 4. But a sixth round pick? No. He shouldn't go two slots after Ragulin. He shouldn't go before Art Coulter or Bill White or Pat Stapleton or Hap Day. What happened to Konstantinov was very sad. He had established himself as one of the league's elite in the two seasons prior to the accident. But does two years in the elite equal a sixth round pick? It shouldn't.
*Love the Stanowski pick. Great guy to have in your locker room, and he brings a lot on the ice. And he has played under Day before. We'll see if Day blows a gasket this time should Stanowski do a dance in the middle of the ice during a long stoppage in play.
*Tretiak's a polarizing guy. Some think he's one of the best ever. Others wouldn't put him as a No. 1. I'm somewhere in between. Do I rate him as a No. 1? Yes. He's in that 11-20 class with guys like Benedict, Gardiner, Parent, Smith and Fuhr. So he won't hurt you. I'm a big Mike Vernon fan. One of the best back-ups in the draft.
*Hap Day's one of the top coaches ever. You can make a case for him as a top five guy. He coached what I would define as the NHL's first real dynasty. But there are some guys on this team who I think could cause problems for Day. The old Soviet guard shouldn't - you had to unequivocally buy into the team game to play for Tarasov. But for Day, there could be issues with a guy like Bure, who only plays for Bure. And there could be issues with a guy like Fedorov, who was wildly inconsistent after 1996. Too many nights, it looked like Sergei was merely out there for a skate.
*One other concern with Pavel, and this is a big one: he's really cozy with the Russian mafia. The Russian mafia made a fortune extorting money from NHL players. The Soviet and Russian players on this team might not appreciate that very much.
*This is a dynamic, talented team with a good defence, very good goaltending and great coaching. If they can overcome some of the issues, including one very big and potentially divisive issue, they could do a lot of damage.

Soviet Union

Head Coach: Hap Day
Assistant Coach: Arkady Chernyshev

Woody Dumart - Syl Apps (A) - Pavel Bure
Anatoli Firsov - Sergei Fedorov - Dino Ciccarelli
Jiri Holik - Red Berenson (A) - Blair Russel
Venjamin Alexandrov - Thomas Steen (A) - Bengt-Ã…ke Gustafsson
Erich Kühnhackl

Valeri Vasiliev (C) - Vladimir Lutchenko
Si Griffis - Vladimir Konstantinov
Harvey Pulford - Wally Stanowski
Ivan Tregubov

Vladislav Tretiak
Mike Vernon
​

 

[God Bless Canada]

That's it for tonight boys. 16 down, 12 to go. TC, nik and Eagle are on deck for tomorrow. If Wiser makes his last pick, I'll review his team. If not, it'll be pit.

22 finished rosters have been posted. Waiting for Wiser to make his last pick, which would make it 23. Waiting for LL to finish his team.

Spit, camper, sturm/Speaker and Nalyd to post their teams.

 

[seventieslord]

*In terms of personnel, this is as good as any defence in the draft. I'd say it's better than LL's, and LL went defence with five of his first seven picks.

Come on now. Zubov and Samuelsson as a 4th and 5th, versus Chara and Baun? No contest. LL paid a hefty price to do it, but he's got the best blueline.

(BTW, they're the Thunder Bay Twins; not sure where Minnesota came from)

 

[God Bless Canada]

The reason we looked at Forsberg is his strength and physical play advantages over Boucher. As I said before, Boucher's the better player, but if we would have landed Forsberg, it would have meant we could have gone in so many different directions with our first line LW: a skilled offensive guy like Kariya or Conacher, a goal-scoring power forward, or another solid power forward.

The initial plan was to get Olmstead in 7 to play with Lafontaine. (We went with Lafontaine over Ratelle in 6 expecting Olmstead to fall to us in 7). That didn't pan out. So then we decided to round out the first line with Bun Cook. A little earlier than some might expect Cook to be picked, but at the same time, we knew he wouldn't be available in the eighth round. (That's why I don't really believe in guys getting picked too soon in a 28-team draft. With few exceptions. I believe in guys being miscast in roles. Few guys are picked too soon). And by getting Cook it means that we have a line capable of playing against the opposition's best, and when you have that in your first line, it gives you a lot of advantages.

GBC, your top-line combo of Richard and Boucher is just terrifying. Both are probably in the top five all-time in goalscoring and playmaking abilities respectively. And both were the dominant playoff performers of their generation. If you were in fact debating between Boucher, Lach, and Forsberg, you made an excellent choice going with the Ranger. Probably the only moment of the draft where I said "how'd we let him do that!" was when you managed to get both of those guys on the same line.