ATD #10 Lineup Assassination Thread

[seventieslord]

Leopold, by assuming a player to be better at something due to his era undermines this process. Just like you can't take a player from today and assume that makes him faster and bigger. You've gotta look at it all relatively.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

Will try and get a few reviews done later tonight.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Leopold, by assuming a player to be better at something due to his era undermines this process. Just like you can't take a player from today and assume that makes him faster and bigger. You've gotta look at it all relatively.

I think I still am. I think a nice amount of players from the O6 are responsible defensively at the least. I don't say that because they're from the O6 era, I say that because they were. I think responsible is such a broad and generic term that it can mean so many things, and that's why I think it fits for guys from that era who there isn't much talk on(regarding their defensive game). They weren't standouts, but if they weren't responsible, you'd have heard about it, like with Gordie Drillon. I don't think the responsible tag applied only to that era, as I think a nice amount of players from every era can be considered responsible defensively.

I don't think it's all that wrong to say that many O6 players were responsible defensively based on GBC's reasoning, either. He does have a point, as in most cases a team from that era couldn't afford a one-dimensional guy unless he was something special. I liken it to the CFL and R-Kal Truluck. Truluck was able to stick in the NFL for some time, but always ended up getting bounced around in the CFL. Why is that? He was a tremendous pass rusher, but the NFL, with their larger roster sizes and 4x the amount of teams, can afford a one-dimensional pass rusher to come in on third downs and the like. CFL teams couldn't afford that. That's not to imply every CFL defensive lineman is good(in a CFL context) at both defending the rush and the pass, but they're all adequately responsible. In Sloan's case, I think the tag fits. He wasn't really all that elite offensively, and by all accounts was a pretty gritty and tough player. Since there's no evidence to say he was either good or bad defensively, I think it's safe to assume he was responsible in his own end. Maybe he was only kept around for his toughness and the odd offensive burst, I don't know, I clearly wasn't alive then. However, there's no evidence to assume he was bad, so I think that's where responsible comes in. Again, it's broad, it's generic, and it probably fits the majority(if not a pretty good majority) of players in this thing, and I don't think Sloan's an exception.

 

[God Bless Canada]

California Golden Seals review...

General Managers- Agent Dale Cooper & Evil Sather
Head Coach: Tommy Gorman
Captain: Scott Stevens
Alternates: Gordie Howe, Rod Brind'amour, Alex Delvecchio.

"The Assembly Line"
#26 Brian Propp- #10 Alex Delvecchio- #9 Gordie Howe
#14 Brendan Shanahan- #11 Dubbie Bowie- #41 Theo Fleury
#17 Rod Brind'Amour- #7 Cooney Weiland- #23 Bobby Nystrom
#10 John Sorrell- #20 Dave Poulin- #18 Marcel Bonin
Spares: Randy McKay, Hakan Loob

#4 Scott Stevens-#22 Flash Hollett
#2 Al MacInnis-#5 Mike Ramsey
#15 Mattias Nostrom-#44 Ron Greschner
#3 Dion Phaneuf

#1 Cecil 'Tiny' Thompson
#35 Mike Richter

PP #1
Shanahan-Delvecchio-Howe
Stevens-MacInnis

PP#2
Propp-Weiland-Fleury
Hollett-Greschner

PK #1
Propp-Poulin
Stevens- Norstrom

PK#2
Brind'Amour-Fleury
MacInnis-Ramsey

PK forwards #3: Weiland-Sorrell

*You can go a lot of different directions with the first two lines because there are so many multi-dimensional performers. Reuniting Howe and Delvecchio was brilliant and it gives you an early head start. There's part of me that says put Shanahan on that line so that you have the two dominant power forwards together. But I also respect having Propp - an SJHL alum, always a plus in my eyes - in that role. Propp's grit is pretty underrated. He can be dirty, too.
-I think Shanahan is definitely the better player, but I understand saving him for the mighty mites.
*Big Fleury fan. A love him or hate him player. One of the hardest things I've had to do in the ATD was passing on my boy Theo to take Sloan. We just didn't think Theo would open up room enough for the Kid Line guys, and well, the thought of a Busher Jackson vs. Theo Fleury drinking contest scared me. But Theo's awesome. Defining player for his generation. A superstar in the playoffs.
*One concern about the top two lines is Bowie. I'm not sold on him, and I know that's a recurring theme from me. I have my concerns about pre-26 guys. But the talent was even more spread out before the First World War. Bowie's accomplishments were great, but I think most forwards in this draft - even the third and fourth line grinders - would have put up those kind of numbers against that kind of competition. I respect Bowie. He was our 13th F last draft. But I think that's where he should be.
*ES, you made a comment earlier about scoring on the right side when you picked Loob. If I had Howe, Theo and Nystrom, I wouldn't be worried about scoring from the right side. A thought: you put Loob on the third line, and move Nystrom down, you guys would have three tremendous scoring lines. Sorrell-Poulin-Nystrom would be an excellent fourth line. And Bonin would be in the wings as a playoff ringer.
*You guys EARNED rave reviews when you got Stevens and MacInnis. And there should be a temptation to play them together. I would have. Doesn't mean much. Just sayin'. And frankly, if you're looking for the contrast in styles in a pairing, Hollett and Ramsey would be a good second pairing - the excellent skill of Hollett teamed with the ultra-steady Ramsey.
-It's sad that people forget how good Stevens was offensively. Wasn't as good defensively back then. But for one year - 1993-94 - he brought it all together, and frankly, he should have won the Norris that season. Ahead of Bourque.
*Greschner's an ES favourite, so I'm not surprised you guys went after him. I'm not sold on Norstrom as an ATD guy - I think there are better defensive guys out there if you look further back. But he won't hurt you as a No. 6, either.
*Thompson's in that 20-25 classification for goaltenders. Good No. 1. Won't steal you games. Won't hurt you, either. And frankly, this team shouldn't need a goalie who can steal games.
*Another team with a very good, but not great, coach. Won't hurt you in this division. Gorman might be the best coach in the division, but there's little to choose between him, Hart, Green and Sather. (Although Sather's a completely different style).
*When I look at this team, I see excellent versatility. Much like the Secrets, they can beat you in several different ways - physical play, defensive reliability, offensive skill. Well coached, too. Always helps when you get the best forward of all-time.

 

[Hedberg]

For the Salmon Kings, what are poster's opinions on a bottom six of

Owen Nolan - Walt Tkaczuk - Stan Smyl
John Ferguson - Edgar Laprade - Mike Keane
Tiger Williams

instead of

John Ferguson - Walt Tkaczuk - Stan Smyl
Tiger Williams - Edgar Laprade - Mike Keane
Owen Nolan

 

[God Bless Canada]

New Haven Nighthawks review...

Aurel Joliat - Jean Beliveau (C) - Harry Hyland
Alf Smith (A) - Frank McGee - Billy Gilmour The Silver Seven Line
Gaye Stewart - Vyacheslav Starshinov - Boris Mayorov
Tommy Smith - Marty Walsh - P. J. Axelsson

extras: Marc Tardif, Andre Lacroix The WHA Duo

Raymond Bourque (A)- Harvey Pulford
Babe Siebert - Ching Johnson
Gennady Tsygankov - Viktor Kuzkin

extra: Alexander Gusev

Johnny Bower
Riley Hern

*Probably one of the most anticipated reviews of the draft, for what is usually one of the most anticipated teams of the draft. Not just because VanI loads up on late picks, but because he loves to go off the board. Nobody is more unpredictable.
*Okay, there was one predictable pick: Jean Beliveau at No. 8. And who can blame VanI? Way back in ATD 6, I labelled Beliveau "Mr. Intangibles." I think he's the best leader of all-time, one of the best playoff performers of all-time, and a wicked combination of size, skill and hockey sense. One of a select few to lead a team in goals, assists, points and PIMs in a season. When VanI got him, (and Muphy got Messier), we knew we had to get a certain type of defenceman.
-Joliat brings tremendous speed, skill and grit to Beliveau's left wing. I don't know if Hyland is the right guy for the right wing, but when you've got the No. 3 C of all-time, and (according to my lists) the No. 6 LW of all-time, you can put almost any scoring winger from an ATD or an MLD on that line, and it'd still be a dangerous line.
*I applauded VanI for picking the guys he wanted for the second line. But I also had my doubts. I just think the talent was too spread out in the early 1900s (say, pre-WWI) to get a fair read on guys. I don't even pay attention to the numbers. The talent was spread out. Goalies couldn't leave their feet to make a save. As a fourth line, yeah, absolutely I'd go with them. But second line? Very, very skeptical. Especially with some of the players that they'll be lining up against in our division. I think they'll be okay early in the year due to chemistry, but as the year progresses, I think they'll be in trouble.
*Maybe VanI should have labelled the third line the Theft Line, because they were steals. Especially Stewart. We were prepared to take this crash and bang scorer for our 14th forward. He's good enough to be a lower tier second line forward, picked in Rounds 13-16. The aptly-named Starshinov was a steal, too, although I think I'm in the minority when I say Stewart was the bigger steal.
*I like Smith and Walsh for where you got them, and where you positioned them. As I said before, I like the early guys more as fourth line guys/spare parts - with few exceptions - because of certain issues. Axelsson will be a hard sell. We know what he's capable of. You can't come up with something new that will sell the skeptics (and there are lots of them) that this guy is ATD worthy. A lot of guys might be thinking he'll be a liability.
*I thought you were going for some sort of a WHA line. That's why I made the "positive as Ben Johnson comment" for one of your picks, even though your teams are unpredictable.
*Okay, I knew one other thing: when you traded up, I knew you would pick Bourque. I'm shocked you haven't had him before, because I know you're a fan. A tremendous player to build around. Pulford's another player I have my doubts about, but hey, he's playing with Bourque.
*How much did Babe Siebert and Ching Johnson play together? Not a big issue. Just asking. Siebert's all-star nods came at the end of Johnson's career. Anyways, a classic contrast in styles. I have concerns with Johnson's skating and penchant for clutch-and-grab hockey - especially in our division - but I won't deny his work ethic, strength along the boards or corners, leadership or competitiveness. Looking forward to some great Johnson vs. Nels Stewart battles. Siebert's outstanding mobility will be important playing with Ching.
*It's about friggin' time that Kuzkin went in a position where he will take a regular shift.
*Outstanding goaltending. I think Johnny Bower might be the most underrated No. 1 goalie in the draft. reck had a stat in the HOH Top 100 list that showed just how good Bower was. The all-star nods weren't there, thanks largely to competition (hard to pick them up against Hall, Plante and Sawchuk. In fact, Bower was the only goalie to get an all-star nod, besides the Big 3, from 56-63). But Bower's save percentage was usually among the best. One of hockey's good guys, an outstanding clutch performer and an old-school SJHL alum.
*Henry's a good, reliable back-up. With Bower as your No. 1, you could wait to get a back-up.
*Ross is a good coach. But in a division with Hap Day, Tommy Ivan and Al Arbour, there will be some coaching mismatches. But you should win coaching battles against the Maroons.
*Bottom line: this is, as usual, the most interesting team in the draft. They have four of the top 75 players of all-time. Very few teams can say that. But they also waited until the final two rounds to select half of their team. Opinions will be divergent about this team, and where they finish will depend on how much GMs value certain eras.

 

[God Bless Canada]

For the Salmon Kings, what are poster's opinions on a bottom six of

Owen Nolan - Walt Tkaczuk - Stan Smyl
John Ferguson - Edgar Laprade - Mike Keane
Tiger Williams

instead of

John Ferguson - Walt Tkaczuk - Stan Smyl
Tiger Williams - Edgar Laprade - Mike Keane
Owen Nolan

Nolan's out of position, and for most of his career he wasn't very good defensively. It's still an issue.

The best bet is likely to convert Keane to LW (I think he played the position a little bit early in his career), and then have Williams/Ferguson-Laprade-Nolan on the fourth line. But that fourth line doesn't work well, either.

 

[shawnmullin]

Likes

• I'm a big fan of Forsberg. Injuries notwithstanding, his career was stellar, a real leader, and he'll provide you with solid minutes from your 2nd line. He may have to make up for Selanne's cherry-picking, though.

I agree and that's part of why they're a good fit. Forsberg is going to have to do all the heavy lifting on that line, but they are a scoring line not a checking line so I'm envisioning them more like an all out attack.

Denis Potvin may be pissed off by how often Bad Joe Hall is in the box. Your first line is a real shut down line, but 1/2 of it may be in the box a lot. 100PM in 21 games and 89 in 17 games is a tonne for his era.

Absolutely I know Hall has a temper, but I don't have a team full of guys like that. I think it's good to have a guy who is a little unstable for intimidation His penalty totals never stopped him from being a well respected player and rival of Newsy Lalone.

[*]From my perspective Buddy O'Connor is a weaker 3rd line center. Small, not that physical (a Lady Byng winner), benefitted from the WWII-era (better players overseas and whatnot), and an HHOF member because of the Veteran category ... from my perspective a member not for merit but for old-times sake. Larmer will have to work overtime to make that line work.

GBC and raleh have done better jobs defending O'Connor here and in the past than I would. Again my third line is not a straight up checking line, if it were certainly someone like Carbs or Luce would be a better fit. This is a third scoring line that can play a two way game. All three are in my view capeable of playing on a second line and capeable of playing a strong two way game based on their history. O'Connor won a Hart Trophy AFTER the war and thrived when given a bigger offensive role in New York. In Montreal he was more of a two-way player in a lesser role and he did the job there. When given the chance to take on a top line role he ran with it and unfortunately his peak got cut short by a crash. I look at his record and am thrilled to have him as a third line C. I'm thrilled that all of my top 3 Cs are Hart Trophy winners and my 4th is a Selke winner.

I can understand O'Connor being a debateable guy as a 2nd liner, but as a third liner on a scoring/two-way line I hardly think he's a weak link.

Get Larmer on one of your special teams unit. He was way too versatile a player to sit on the bench when you're either up or down a man

As I mentioned before, Larmer is on my PK on the second unit. It's conceivable I could get him on to the 2nd PP unit in place of O'Connor and that's something worth considering. What do others think?

Thanks a lot for your review Rick, it was fair and insightful! I appreciate it.

 

[shawnmullin]

Team Iceland Review

Rick did my team so I'm returning the favour

Team Iceland

Coach - Herb Brooks

Anatoli Firsov - Syl Apps - Cecil "Babe" Dye
Charlie Simmer - Joe Nieuwendyk - Andy Bathgate
Dany Heatley - Bobby Smith - Pat Verbeek
Pierre Mondou - Craig MacTavish - Kevin Dineen
Tim Hunter, Ray Ferraro

Eddie Shore - Ebbie Goodfellow
Ed Van Impe - Sergei Zubov
Art Coulter - Dallas Smith
Don Awrey

Georges Vezina
John Vanbiesbrouck

PP1
Simmer - Apps - Dye
Shore - Zubov

PP2
Firsov - Nieuwendyk - Heatley
Goodfellow - Bathgate

PK1
MacTavish - Verbeek
Shore - Van Impe

PK2
Bobby Smith - Dineen/Mondou
Coulter - Dallas Smith

-This is a very balanced team from top to bottom. I see that you're going with three scoring lines and it's an approach I enjoy. I think Your third line has some two-way ability but I'm not sure Heatley fits that mould. With him there it's a third scoring line, with someone else it might be more of a two-way unit. Depends what you're looking for. But I really like how you're not relying on any one line to do your scoring. Nobody can shut you down by focusing on one line.

-I really like the depth and balance of your blue line. There's puck moving ability and physical toughness on each pairing. No matter what pairing is on the ice, smaller or softer players are going to have to watch out. Shore is on the bench? Van Impe will get you. Van Impe is sitting out? Dallas Smith will make your life miserable. That physical attack from the blue line is going to be tiresome for the opponent's forwards.

-Bathgate doesn't get much credit for his playoff performance, but he's playing with a playoff warrior in Nieuwendyk that I think would be a really good match for him. Bathgate will take Joe to new heights in the regular season and I think Joe will help Bathgate bring it when the puck drops come playoff time. I don't know exactly why I like that pairing as much as I do, but I do.

-Without one obviously dominant superstar forward you've done a good job spreading that scoring out. You may not have someone like Gretzky or even Mikita or Morenz, but you don't need a game breaker when three lines can sting you.

-The checking fourth line is good but not great. I think they'll do a solid job but they aren't going to be lights out. More like middle of the pack. I love me some Mac T though. Great leader, terrific in the face off dot, tough, gritty... and he'll make it tough on the other team's top line in the post-season.

-Shore is awesome. Any team that has him is ace in my books. He's your go to guy and is a superstar in every aspect of the game. I'm jealous.

-Love your depth but I think perhaps your depth up front and on D cost you when it came to goaltending and coaching. I'm not a huge Vezina fan, he's bottom third in terms of starting goaltenders in my view. He certainly won't steal you any games. Herb Brooks is a solid coach, but I don't think he's going to outcoach anyone or put you over the top in any series'. If you're in close battles where the talent is similar, you might get hurt by the match ups in goal and behind the bench. Some others may value those things less than I do or like your guys there more than I do.

-That being said, I don't think many will match that depth.

Like the team, would be scared to play them.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Kansas City Scouts review...

GMs: Pwnasaurus and JimEIV

Coach: Jack Adams
Assistant Coach: Jacques Laperriere



John Tonelli - Bill Cowley - Charlie Conacher
"Phantom" Joe Malone - Hooley Smith (C) - Dave Taylor (A)
Tommy Phillips - Doug Jarvis - Mario Tremblay
Dave Balon - Glen Skov - Jim Pappin
Bronco Horvath


Bobby Orr - Harry Howell (A)
Brad McCrimmon - Rob Ramage
Frank Patrick - Barry Ashbee
Brad Maxwell

Gerry Cheevers
Roger Crozier

Last one...
*A very dangerous first line with the elite playmaking of Cowley and the potent power forward goal scoring of the Big Bomber Conacher. I don't know if Tonelli's grit is needed on this line - you have plenty of grit with Conacher - but he's a nice compliment to those two players, because of his grit and skill.
*Dangerous second line. Again, a couple gritty scorers - Smith and Taylor - to work with the offensive splendor of Malone. I don't think Malone's as good as some, but I think he's a dangerous second line sniper with a couple forwards who can open up room for him.
*Third line starts with one of the best defensive centres in the draft in Jarvis. Offensive contributions will be minimal, but he's reliable, consistent, low maintenance and an ace in the face-off circle. Do not expect much for offence at all. It might be the lowest scoring third line in the draft.
*I love the fourth line. All three guys were on my list for this role. They're tough, they're aggressive, they have good skill, they have excellent defensive awareness. Sad I won't get Balon in the MLD, but I'm happy to see him in the ATD.
*Is their a bigger contrast in styles for a first pairing than Orr and Howell? We know what Orr can do. He's an offensive arsenal unto himself. And his speed and smarts help him get back into the play. Howell has decent offensive ability, but his value is in his own zone. One of the best shot-blockers in the draft.
*A very difficult second pairing to play against. McCrimmon and Ramage won't be counted on for their scoring, but their first pass is all right. It's not like we'll be hearing their break-out passes. McCrimmon's a poor man's Fern Flaman - a good, reliable, physical defensive defenceman. Ramage is a big stalwart.
*Ashbee's one of hockey's all-time sad stories. Too bad he had such hard luck.
*Excellent goaltending tandem. You pick a guy like Cheevers for the right to have him in the playoffs. But you also need him to play 50-55 games in the regular season. And that's when you're happy to have a guy like Crozier.
*Jack Adams is a very, very good coach. Tough, stern and demanding, a classic case of motivate by intimidate. You need a high-character team to succeed with Adams, and I think you have it.
*This team is on the right path in a lot of ways. They have some nice blend on the top two lines, two bottom lines that can play against the opponent's best, and the best defenceman of all-time. More dangerous offensively than KC's past entries.

 

[VanIslander]

Thanks for the review GBC. Some comments:

Joliat brings tremendous speed, skill and grit to Beliveau's left wing. I don't know if Hyland is the right guy for the right wing, but when you've got the No. 3 C of all-time, and (according to my lists) the No. 6 LW of all-time, you can put almost any scoring winger from an ATD or an MLD on that line, and it'd still be a dangerous line.

Hyland is renowned for his speed and his shot and has a track record of clutch scoring. I wanted a fast sniper for that line and almost drafted Cournoyer but went with Ching instead. Hyland was third on my depth chart and was happy to see him drop.

I applauded VanI for picking the guys he wanted for the second line. But I also had my doubts... As a fourth line, yeah, absolutely I'd go with them. But second line?

Well, in their era, they were a dynasty, the Silver Seven, and they did it with skill AND physicality. I drafted the core four, upgraded a defenseman with Bourque, changed the goalie to Bower and dropped a rover. I am honoured to have them play a significant role in all-time competition. That said, if that line and the Stewart-Starshinov-Mayorov "third" line were seen as more of a 2 and 2A line, that would be more charitable and reflective of the flexible depth.

The aptly-named Starshinov was a steal, too, although I think I'm in the minority when I say Stewart was the bigger steal.

took me a sec to get it, good one! given the reaction to the pick, the shine is now put back on that star

I thought you were going for some sort of a WHA line. That's why I made the "positive as Ben Johnson comment" for one of your picks, even though your teams are unpredictable.

I think my teams through a lot, plan extensively, research like hell, build lists, make a job of planning everything... unpredictable because not going with convention perhaps... I wanted to build a WHA line but Lacroix simply is too slow without any compensating grit, a guy who did decent a couple of years on an expansion Flyers team, nothing exceptional given the competition level, whereas Tardif has both the tools and the demonstrated NHL success to handle a regular shift productively without question. The fact that he chose to jump at $350,000 his first year in the WHA rather than the $40,000 his previous year in the NHL should not count against him, since he was already on pace for an incredible career with his years on the Habs.

Siebert's outstanding mobility will be important playing with Ching.

They may have played less than two years together as NYRs but their Hart-quality impact on that decade and their differing styles complement each other so well.

It's about friggin' time that Kuzkin went in a position where he will take a regular shift.

You're telling me. I drafted Kuzkin-Davydov as my TOP pairing several drafts ago, though I admit he's more of a second pairing guy, re-uniting with Davydov, given how respected they were together, seemed apt. The last few drafts Kuzkin has been overlooked. I was TRYING to draft only guys I've never drafted before, got up to my last few picks, but had to draft the Soviet trio of blueliners, each of whom I have had before at some point, because they were by far the best available. Tsygankov was accepted by several GMs as a legit #4 in previous draft discussions and yet he dropped to the last round of this draft. Getting three Soviet greats on the blueline, especially given where some other Soviet defenders went, was pretty sweet.

... have four of the top 75 players of all-time. Very few teams can say that.

Six (6) of the top-100! Thanks to a number of trades: Beliveau, Joliat, Bower with The Big Three on the blueline: Bourque, Siebert, Johnson. I know that four of you ATD GMs put Ching on your HOH Top-100 list even though he didn't make the final, composite list, and I was pleased as punch to get him at 127th overall.

...waited until the final two rounds to select half of their team..

And look how that turned out. I don't think that strategy will work so well next time (I'm gonna try a no-trade team next ATD believe it or not) but boy was I whistlin' Dixie this time around!

 

[pappyline]

I think I still am. I think a nice amount of players from the O6 are responsible defensively at the least. I don't say that because they're from the O6 era, I say that because they were. I think responsible is such a broad and generic term that it can mean so many things, and that's why I think it fits for guys from that era who there isn't much talk on(regarding their defensive game). They weren't standouts, but if they weren't responsible, you'd have heard about it, like with Gordie Drillon. I don't think the responsible tag applied only to that era, as I think a nice amount of players from every era can be considered responsible defensively.

I don't think it's all that wrong to say that many O6 players were responsible defensively based on GBC's reasoning, either. He does have a point, as in most cases a team from that era couldn't afford a one-dimensional guy unless he was something special. I liken it to the CFL and R-Kal Truluck. Truluck was able to stick in the NFL for some time, but always ended up getting bounced around in the CFL. Why is that? He was a tremendous pass rusher, but the NFL, with their larger roster sizes and 4x the amount of teams, can afford a one-dimensional pass rusher to come in on third downs and the like. CFL teams couldn't afford that. That's not to imply every CFL defensive lineman is good(in a CFL context) at both defending the rush and the pass, but they're all adequately responsible. In Sloan's case, I think the tag fits. He wasn't really all that elite offensively, and by all accounts was a pretty gritty and tough player. Since there's no evidence to say he was either good or bad defensively, I think it's safe to assume he was responsible in his own end. Maybe he was only kept around for his toughness and the odd offensive burst, I don't know, I clearly wasn't alive then. However, there's no evidence to assume he was bad, so I think that's where responsible comes in. Again, it's broad, it's generic, and it probably fits the majority(if not a pretty good majority) of players in this thing, and I don't think Sloan's an exception.

You make some good points.

In the orig six, I think most players were always afraid of losing their jobs & did whatever was necessary to keep them. Often, this meant playing injured And always it meant doing what the coach told you. Almost always for forwards this meant playing hard both ways. That's why I agree with GBC in saying that you had to be good both ways to keep your job. Most teams didn't have defensive specialists. An exception was Montreal who forced great offensive players like Provost, Goyette & Marshall into defensive roles. Hell, Marshall still scored 20 goals as a utility/Pk player. Habs had the depth to do this & the only alternative for guys like Marshall was the minors. Other teams didn't have the depth to do this so they pretty much expected their players to be good both ways. one exception was Chicago in the late 50's. they carried 2 players (glen skov & earl balfour) to do nothing but kill penalties. That was Tommy Ivan who was a great innovater.

I think it is a good assumption that Sloan was good both ways. He wouldn't have had as long a career if he wasn't. I watched him play & IMO he was good both offensively & defensively.

 

[MXD]

Thanks for the review GBC, it's always appreciated. Two points on which I feel a need to answer.

*I’m not convinced that Nichols is an ideal 13th forward. How well will Broadway Bernie accept the role. You have to love the different attributes he brings to that duty.


*I think Georges Boucher is an exceptional player. But when I see a guy who’s five-foot-nine with skating issues, I become concerned. raleh and I talked about picking him, for our No. 2, but I felt he might be a problem in our division against guys like Messier and Beliveau. (I think you got him before our sixth rounder).

First, the comments about Nicholls. We thought Nicholls as a 13th forward should raise some questions, but we also picked Lemieux and Neely, whom will miss some games in the GM's minds. So we picked a C that played RW a bit, and wasn't an offensive one-trick poney... as well as a guy that will deliver a few hits (don't worry, I won't make Nicholls a second-coming of Cam Neely). We all know how solid Nicholls can be when he's paired with one of the two best centers of all-time, not to mention he can enter the lineup here and there on the other lines as well, when Darragh will be stuck working with the Victoria Dairy Company as well or when Odie will be bailing out his big bro, or when Bobby Rousseau will be trying to qualify for the PGA. Also, many GM's picked guys who were always the best players on their teams. Those guys should be much more prone to the 13th forward crisis than Nicholls. I would never pick, let's say, Pavel Bure, as a 13th forward, and not only because he was ALWAYS the best player on his team. But Nicholls ain't Bure.

Boucher? Well, 5'9 wasn't small back then, and physicality wasn't a issue with Boucher, who's one of the toughest 2nd pairing guy in this draft, and a former halfback as well, so he wouldn't have much problems with forechecking. As for speed... He's nowhere fast, but didn't retrieve much evidence that he was a lumbering behemoth either. Nobody ever confused Larry Murphy with a fast skater either... Actually, I really like the Murphy comparison for Boucher, only Boucher was a MUCH tougher player. Heck, Ching Johnson might have more important responsibilities in this edition and was, by all accounts, slower than Boucher. I'd also like to mention than during much of Boucher's career, forward pass wasn't allowed, so that might have over-exposed Boucher's slowliness. Still, he managed to put up extremely interesting numbers.

 

[Pwnasaurus]

GMs: Pwnasaurus and JimEIV

Coach: Jack Adams
Assistant Coach: Jacques Laperriere



John Tonelli - Bill Cowley - Charlie Conacher
"Phantom" Joe Malone - Hooley Smith (C) - Dave Taylor (A)
Tommy Phillips - Doug Jarvis - Mario Tremblay
Dave Balon - Glen Skov - Jim Pappin
Bronco Horvath


Bobby Orr - Harry Howell (A)
Brad McCrimmon - Rob Ramage
Frank Patrick - Barry Ashbee
Brad Maxwell

Gerry Cheevers
Roger Crozier

Last one...
*A very dangerous first line with the elite playmaking of Cowley and the potent power forward goal scoring of the Big Bomber Conacher. I don't know if Tonelli's grit is needed on this line - you have plenty of grit with Conacher - but he's a nice compliment to those two players, because of his grit and skill.
*Dangerous second line. Again, a couple gritty scorers - Smith and Taylor - to work with the offensive splendor of Malone. I don't think Malone's as good as some, but I think he's a dangerous second line sniper with a couple forwards who can open up room for him.
*Third line starts with one of the best defensive centres in the draft in Jarvis. Offensive contributions will be minimal, but he's reliable, consistent, low maintenance and an ace in the face-off circle. Do not expect much for offence at all. It might be the lowest scoring third line in the draft.
*I love the fourth line. All three guys were on my list for this role. They're tough, they're aggressive, they have good skill, they have excellent defensive awareness. Sad I won't get Balon in the MLD, but I'm happy to see him in the ATD.
*Is their a bigger contrast in styles for a first pairing than Orr and Howell? We know what Orr can do. He's an offensive arsenal unto himself. And his speed and smarts help him get back into the play. Howell has decent offensive ability, but his value is in his own zone. One of the best shot-blockers in the draft.
*A very difficult second pairing to play against. McCrimmon and Ramage won't be counted on for their scoring, but their first pass is all right. It's not like we'll be hearing their break-out passes. McCrimmon's a poor man's Fern Flaman - a good, reliable, physical defensive defenceman. Ramage is a big stalwart.
*Ashbee's one of hockey's all-time sad stories. Too bad he had such hard luck.
*Excellent goaltending tandem. You pick a guy like Cheevers for the right to have him in the playoffs. But you also need him to play 50-55 games in the regular season. And that's when you're happy to have a guy like Crozier.
*Jack Adams is a very, very good coach. Tough, stern and demanding, a classic case of motivate by intimidate. You need a high-character team to succeed with Adams, and I think you have it.
*This team is on the right path in a lot of ways. They have some nice blend on the top two lines, two bottom lines that can play against the opponent's best, and the best defenceman of all-time. More dangerous offensively than KC's past entries.

Thanks for the great review GBC. One note about the 3rd line as I agree it won't really light up the scoreboard and I know you are not a big pre-war fan but Tommy Phillips certainly has the ability to create his own offense and make the 3rd line at least better than the least offensive line in the draft IMO. You could make the arguement he was the best player of the pre-Cyclone era and it wasn't just because of his defensive play. I know the sample size will never be entirely optimal but it is wat it is.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Thanks for the review GBC. Some comments:


Hyland is renowned for his speed and his shot and has a track record of clutch scoring. I wanted a fast sniper for that line and almost drafted Cournoyer but went with Ching instead. Hyland was third on my depth chart and was happy to see him drop.


Well, in their era, they were a dynasty, the Silver Seven, and they did it with skill AND physicality. I drafted the core four, upgraded a defenseman with Bourque, changed the goalie to Bower and dropped a rover. I am honoured to have them play a significant role in all-time competition. That said, if that line and the Stewart-Starshinov-Mayorov "third" line were seen as more of a 2 and 2A line, that would be more charitable and reflective of the flexible depth.


took me a sec to get it, good one! given the reaction to the pick, the shine is now put back on that star


I think my teams through a lot, plan extensively, research like hell, build lists, make a job of planning everything... unpredictable because not going with convention perhaps... I wanted to build a WHA line but Lacroix simply is too slow without any compensating grit, a guy who did decent a couple of years on an expansion Flyers team, nothing exceptional given the competition level, whereas Tardif has both the tools and the demonstrated NHL success to handle a regular shift productively without question. The fact that he chose to jump at $350,000 his first year in the WHA rather than the $40,000 his previous year in the NHL should not count against him, since he was already on pace for an incredible career with his years on the Habs.


They may have played less than two years together as NYRs but their Hart-quality impact on that decade and their differing styles complement each other so well.


You're telling me. I drafted Kuzkin-Davydov as my TOP pairing several drafts ago, though I admit he's more of a second pairing guy, re-uniting with Davydov, given how respected they were together, seemed apt. The last few drafts Kuzkin has been overlooked. I was TRYING to draft only guys I've never drafted before, got up to my last few picks, but had to draft the Soviet trio of blueliners, each of whom I have had before at some point, because they were by far the best available. Tsygankov was accepted by several GMs as a legit #4 in previous draft discussions and yet he dropped to the last round of this draft. Getting three Soviet greats on the blueline, especially given where some other Soviet defenders went, was pretty sweet.


Six (6) of the top-100! Thanks to a number of trades: Beliveau, Joliat, Bower with The Big Three on the blueline: Bourque, Siebert, Johnson. I know that four of you ATD GMs put Ching on your HOH Top-100 list even though he didn't make the final, composite list, and I was pleased as punch to get him at 127th overall.


And look how that turned out. I don't think that strategy will work so well next time (I'm gonna try a no-trade team next ATD believe it or not) but boy was I whistlin' Dixie this time around!

I didn't have Siebert and Johnson in my top 100, or top 120. I think they're worthy of consideration. But when I look at the defencemen who didn't make my list (BJ Stewart, Quackenbush, Boucher, Leetch, Pronger) I don't think you'll be able to convince me they should be. But they are a good pairing, and you needed the mobile guy to play with Johnson.

The Silver 7 might have been a dynasty in their day, but it was very, very different then compared with what it was post-WWI (most of the players were pro, and concentrated in the NHA/NHL or the west coast league), and then everything changed in 1926. Talent was very spread out in the time of the Silver 7, but it says a lot they were able to get a lot of great players at that time.

At the end of the day, it's more important to get the guy you want than to win this thing.

I applauded FI#2 when he brought McGee into the ATD in ATD 6.

I think Kuzkin is a good third pairing guy. He fell out of the last ATD, and was the gimmie No. 1 overall pick in MLD 9. I don't think he should be higher than third pairing. But he's solid for the third pairing.

No offence, I don't think you could go an entire draft without trading. I think you enjoy doing it this way too much. The thread starters would be happy, though, if you stopped trading for a draft. raleh and I didn't trade in this draft, or ATD 8. We didn't need to picking nearly in the heart of the draft, and confident we'd always get the guy we wanted.

 

[VanIslander]

Attention all GMs: VanIslander will not be trading picks in ATD11. There I announced it. It'll be quite a novel change...

raleh and I didn't trade in this draft, or ATD 8. We didn't need to picking nearly in the heart of the draft, and confident we'd always get the guy we wanted.

well, as you said, it's more important to get the guy you want than to win this thing.

 

[kruezer]

I think my teams through a lot, plan extensively, research like hell, build lists, make a job of planning everything... unpredictable because not going with convention perhaps... I wanted to build a WHA line but Lacroix simply is too slow without any compensating grit, a guy who did decent a couple of years on an expansion Flyers team, nothing exceptional given the competition level, whereas Tardif has both the tools and the demonstrated NHL success to handle a regular shift productively without question. The fact that he chose to jump at $350,000 his first year in the WHA rather than the $40,000 his previous year in the NHL should not count against him, since he was already on pace for an incredible career with his years on the Habs.

I once read a great story about Andre Lacroix's career in a book I have since lost (by McFarlane or however you spell his name), apparently he never used an agent and negotiated all his own contracts and he always put in a clause that he would become a free agent if the team went under, apparently that explains some of his moves around the WHA more accurately than some of the other official reports out there.

I have lost far too many of my old hockey books, I guess that's what happens when you move a couple times a year it seems. I had some great info on Doru Tureanu, Dan Bain, The Old Silver Seven teams, Punch Imlach's adventures, Grapes' time in Boston, Darryl Sittler, Tim Horton, and many many more (including a signed copy of The Game by Ken Dryden that I better find when I get home this Christmas), the local library is just not sufficient.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Attention all GMs: VanIslander will not be trading picks in ATD11. There I announced it. It'll be quite a novel change...


well, as you said, it's more important to get the guy you want than to win this thing.

It's also easier to get the guy you want when a) you pick in the middle of a 28-team draft (I knew we wouldn't be trading when I found out we were picking 17th), and b) when you're looking for the guy to fill a specific need.

We knew that Jackson would probably be available in 4, Primeau would be available in 5 and Vasko would be available in 8. Those were my guys for No. 2 LW, No. 2 C and No. 3 D from the start. I knew Sloan would be available for our Kid Line in 10. I expected Lehman would be available in 18. Didn't think that Duff or MacLeish would fall. Didn't think Watson or Stanowski would fall. But once you get past the sixth round, and rankings are all over the place due to needs, if you're picking 17 in odd rounds, and 11 in the others, you don't need to trade.

I hope every GM from his draft is back next draft. I think 28 teams should be the cap from now on. If I could draft between 11 and 18 every draft, I'd be happy. (Although it would be nice to get Bobby, Wayne, Gordie or Mario just once).

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

It's also easier to get the guy you want when a) you pick in the middle of a 28-team draft (I knew we wouldn't be trading when I found out we were picking 17th), and b) when you're looking for the guy to fill a specific need.

We knew that Jackson would probably be available in 4, Primeau would be available in 5 and Vasko would be available in 8. Those were my guys for No. 2 LW, No. 2 C and No. 3 D from the start. I knew Sloan would be available for our Kid Line in 10. I expected Lehman would be available in 18. Didn't think that Duff or MacLeish would fall. Didn't think Watson or Stanowski would fall. But once you get past the sixth round, and rankings are all over the place due to needs, if you're picking 17 in odd rounds, and 11 in the others, you don't need to trade.

I hope every GM from his draft is back next draft. I think 28 teams should be the cap from now on. If I could draft between 11 and 18 every draft, I'd be happy. (Although it would be nice to get Bobby, Wayne, Gordie or Mario just once).

GBC, you had plenty of chances to select Bauer, Cashman, Drillon and Tremblay. You just got greedy.

 

[Sturminator]

As to your first sentence, I did not say that, did not imply that. Nice try in attempting to put words in my mouth.

You're right, you didn't say it was "every" player, only "most". Of course, you exclude the Hall of Famers, so "most" could easily be taken to mean "every forward from this era not in the HHOF". This is what you wrote:

Most players in Sloan's time were very good defensively. You had to be. If you weren't, you either had to be a truly elite offensive player (ie: an HHOFer), or you lost your job to one of the many other players who couldn't get a job because there were only six teams.

I am not putting words in your mouth, GBC. You write like a lawyer, which is something I know well (being one myself), and are quite good at incrementally nudging your way into some really wild conclusions through a series of connected statements without ever spelling things out plainly. It allows you to make strong "suggestions" while maintaining your right to accuse others of putting words in your mouth. Although I admire your rhetorical skills, I can't let you wriggle off the hook every time.

There's no evidence of Sloan being a liability defensively or being below average defensively, either. Which would say to me he was average for the times he played. Which means that he would be a very effective back-checker.

O6 forward who kept his job for a long time + not in the Hall of Fame = very effective backchecker

Hmmmm...that's quite the magic trick. Remind me to draft Vic Stasiuk for my second line in ATD#11. Seriously, although I agree with you that the standard of two-way play was generally higher in the O6 era, you are just taking things much too far. It wasn't that much higher. Switch "responsible" for "very effective" and we'll see eye-to-eye.

 

[MXD]

For whatever reasons, there was two teams (or two GM's) that I have first that I had first last draft, too. I think both didn't finish first, though.

 

[Murphy]

I just spent the morning at work putting together my rankings and some pretty interesting things came up.

1. Lack of parity in the Robson: My God, every team but one in this division has a shot at winning the whole thing in my opinion. Which to me says that this division is going to have a survivor, not a winner. In no particular order, the Smokies, the Secrets, the Clippers, and the Metropolitans are just insanely good teams while the others are right there. I feel like I'm going to have a hard time voting against any one of these teams.

I agree, and not just in the Robson either. I spent a good part of an hour trying to rank teams. With some teams that ended up ranked 4-5th in their divisions I'd have to go back and have another look as it just didn't seem right. I pretty much ended up going cross-eyed going back and forth and comparing. Its why I don't want to rank special teams. I'm not going through that process all over again.

 

[VanIslander]

raleh, your post shouldn't name teams in what is a thinly veiled attempt to influence voting (mentioning 4 great teams in a division is like ranking them, unfair to other three teams - let each GM make their own decision on rankings before we announce ours)

even politican elections don't allow campaigning on the day of elections!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! because last minute thumbs up/down unduely affects the process

let's wait until everyone has voted before reflecting on such things

one thing administrating past votings has taught me: there is great variation in voting! opinions do indeed vary.

 

[VanIslander]

sorry raleh, just wanted to nip that bud before a trend got going...

 

[raleh]

sorry raleh, just wanted to nip that bud before a trend got going...

Good point. Post deleted.