The ATD 2014 Lineup Assassination Thread - Jim Robson Division

[MadArcand]

First off, let me just say that I think you tried a little too hard to recreate arrbez's winning formula from a few years ago, taking the same top 4 picks that he did (and drafting Brind'amour fairly early). In a 28 team draft, I thought Kurri and Johnson were kind of weak value; I understand wanting Kurri with Gretzky, but IMO Laperriere or Kasatonov could have done with Johnson did but with more versatility. That off my chest, on to the merits of the team

Actually, funnily enough, that was not the plan at all. I came so close to taking Makarov for Grezky's wing, but opted for Kurri's defensive ability (as I wanted LeClair on LW from the outset). Leetch was the most logical Coffey replacement, though I did toy with the idea of taking Chara until BC took him. The only guy inspired by arrbez's team was Moose Johnson. I did consider Laperriere heavily, but he seemed too fragile (especially if paired with Leetch). Brind'Amour was another player I wanted from the start, as getting best #1 and #3 centers in the draft ain't bad idea in my book.

Weak 2nd PP. To the extent that Roberts is a worthy 2nd liner, it's because of his even strength offense. IMO, Brind'amour would be a better choice as a net presence here. Bowie and Monsienko are okay I guess. The real problem are the point men - Ramage would be fine as the 2nd best member of the unit but he's playing next to Moose Johnson, a notoriously poor puck handler, who is going to be bobbling pucks at the point.

I think Roberts is OK net presence with his 38% career PP utilization. Not as much as Brind'Amour, but still solid.

As for Moose being a terrible puckhandler - how in the nine hells did he get his offensive numbers then? Why did he play forward for times if he was so offensively inept? Is it just the matter of his fingers?

I could replace him with Steve Smith, who has some PP credentials, but it'd be bleh. Maybe I could put Brindy at C and move Bowie to point?

Johnson and Brind'amour are strong on the first PK and Linden is weak. Lowe is okay I guess, though personally, I think Blake would be better.

Blake is obviously strong for a 2nd PK and I guess Steve Smith is passable. You really need to put together the deadline Gretzky-Kurri shorthanded duo.

Toews and Ramage would make decent spare PKers

I could rework the PK forward duos to Brindy - Toews and Gretzky - Kurri.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Thanks for the much-needed review, Billy! Was starting to wonder if everyone was afraid to touch my roster or something, it had gone unnoticed for a while.

You bring up some great points with your analysis, and I've altered my lineup accordingly.

I took some flak earlier for my draft approach, waiting too long to start my blueline, and it may be my undoing. Last year I was gifted the Bobby Orr pick, though, and I didn't accomplish much then either.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Actually, funnily enough, that was not the plan at all. I came so close to taking Makarov for Grezky's wing, but opted for Kurri's defensive ability (as I wanted LeClair on LW from the outset). Leetch was the most logical Coffey replacement, though I did toy with the idea of taking Chara until BC took him. The only guy inspired by arrbez's team was Moose Johnson. I did consider Laperriere heavily, but he seemed too fragile (especially if paired with Leetch). Brind'Amour was another player I wanted from the start, as getting best #1 and #3 centers in the draft ain't bad idea in my book.

If you really wanted LeClair, then yes, Kurri was definitely a better choice than Makarov. I guess Kurri is one of those guys like Hooley Smith who has a unique skillset for a 1st line-capable player, so if you want him, you need to pay a premium. And Leetch made the most sense when you drafted him, yes. I was honestly surprised that nobody tried Leetch with Gretzky before arrbez did. I guess it was the Moose Johnson pick that irritated me at the time.

Brind'amour is defintiely not the best #3 center in the draft, not with guys like Jacques Lemaire, Igor Larionov, Pavel Datsyuk, Neil Colville, and Sergei Fedorov/Dave Keon (whoever Reds ends up putting there) slumming it on 3rd lines in a 28 team draft. There are a few others I'd put at Brind'amour's level, but he is still an above average one.

As for Moose being a terrible puckhandler - how in the nine hells did he get his offensive numbers then? Why did he play forward for times if he was so offensively inept? Is it just the matter of his fingers?

He was actually really low scoring as a defenseman, after being a high scoring winger. Being a good puckhandler isn't really necessary to score from the wing.

Anyway, I just did a search of this forum and came across this nik jr post which had this quote from the Gazette from when Johnson was a forward:

Johnston (sic), at left wing, is chiefly remarkable for his great speed. He is a wonderful skater and does a tremendous amount of work in a game. Where he fails is stick handling, his shooting being weak, and he is not often effective when he does work through a defense. His long reach and great speed combine to make him of great use to the team in carrying down for the others and in breaking up the plays of the opposing side.

Additionally, yes, there is the matter of the missing fingers, and the fact that he used that ridiculous 99 inch stick to make his pokechecking better, but it almost makes it impossible for him to have been much of a stick handler.

I could replace him with Steve Smith, who has some PP credentials, but it'd be bleh. Maybe I could put Brindy at C and move Bowie to point?

I considered Bowie at the point when I had him, but was told that he was better known for his shooting from in tight, rather than having a booming shot, so it wouldn't be the best use for him. Makes sense.

I could rework the PK forward duos to Brindy - Toews and Gretzky - Kurri.

I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of our Chicago fans on Toews' penalty killing, specifically why Chicago was so poor on the PK for those years when Toews was a top PKer (was it just goaltending?)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pittsburgh Hornets review

Pittsburgh Hornets​

GM: 87and71
Head Coach: Scotty Bowman
Captain: Ted Lindsay
Alternate Captain: Daniel Alfredsson
Alternate Captain: Scott Niedermayer


Ted Lindsay C - Adam Oates - Mike Bossy
Ilya Kovalchuk - Mats Sundin - Daniel Alfredsson A
Bob Pulford - Pavel Datsyuk - Dirk Graham
Bob Bourne - Bernie Nicholls - Terry O'Reilly
Boris Mayorov - Craig MacTavish - Boris Mayorov

Serge Savard - Scott Niedermayer A
Flash Hollett - Red Dutton
Viktor Kuzkin - Ken Morrow
Nikolai Sologubov Willie Mitchell

Tom Barrasso
Hap Holmes


Power Play 1:

Ted Lindsay - Adam Oates - Mike Bossy
Ilya Kovalchuk - Scott Niedermayer


Power Play 2:

Mats Sundin - Pavel Datsyuk - Daniel Alfredsson
Flash Hollett - Viktor Kuzkin


Penalty Kill 1:

Bob Pulford - Dirk Graham
Serge Savard - Red Dutton

Penalty Kill 2:

Mats Sundin/Bob Bourne/Craig MacTavish - Daniel Alfredsson
Viktor Kuzkin - Ken Morrow

​

Starting with 2 wingers is traditionally a losing strategy in the ATD, but you managed to build a pretty solid team despite that.

Coaching

On most all-time lists Bowman is the best. The man just got the most out of talented teams. He wasn't the most versatile coach though - he was always about defense-first, and you had to be a really special player (like Lafleur) for Bowman to let you freelance on the ice. He had a special distaste for one-way offensive centers and defensemen. He'll love Datsyuk, and I think he'll be fine with Oates and Sundin (though Sundin will surely see less ice time than Datsyuk as Bowman shuffles the lines). I see him having serious issues with Flash Hollett, who will likely find himself benched periodically.

Excellent on-ice leaders. You know you have a great leadership group when guys like Dirk Graham, Serge Savard, and Red Dutton don't need to wear letters. Heck, Kuzkin and Sundin could be wearing letters too. Definitely one of the best led teams in the draft.

Forwards

I think you took Bossy a little early, but you got good value on Lindsay, so it evens out. Oates isn't really a prototypical #1 center in the ATD, but considering the quality of his wingers, he doesn't need to be. The line doesn't have perfect chemistry - I don't see anyone to keep up with Lindsay in transition, and there is nobody to step in if he picks a fight with the wrong tough guy. But it still has good chemistry. The line isn't the best transition line, with the slow skating Oates at C. But regardless of all the complaints, it is still a strong first line with Lindsay's offensive versatility keeping it from being predictable.

Kovalchuk basically does his thing like a lesser Bobby Hull, and doesn't really use his linemates. So his best linemates are ones who can play with each other (and without the puck when Kovy is hogging it), cover defensively, and win the puck battles. Sundin is definitely a below average #2 center. He's also a decent fit, but not the perfect one. This line would have been better if you kept Datsyuk here, but I think the third line needed him more. Not a bad second line by any means.

One of my favorite 3rd lines in the draft. Datsyuk is such a good two-way player, and Pulford is one of the top 3rd line LWs in the draft. Pulford can also take faceoffs against bigger centers (Datsyuk's one weakness is lack of size and strength). Graham is fairly weak third liner in a draft this size, but he's still a legit one, and his linemates are elite for their roles.

4th line is a solid mix of different skillsets with O'Reilly the typical "goon who can play"

Spares are pretty meh, but won't hurt you.

Defense

I see Niedermayer as an elite #2 at even strength, but a less impressive one on special teams. Savard is also an elite #2. While you don't have that #1 defenseman teams really desire, you still managed to put together a pretty solid first pairing for even strength hockey, and I think these two will work well together.

2nd pairing is a team weakness - I see Hollett as an offensive-minded #4 who really needs a strong partner to cover for him. It's hard to get a read on Dutton, but I can't see him being better than an average #4 in a draft this size. He was Herb Gardiner's long time partner, and I got the impression that Herb was the cerebral, safe player, and Dutton was the one running around trying to create things (and smashing faces... lots of faces). So I don't know if Dutton would be the ideal partner for Hollett. I read his bio, and yes, Dutton seems to have been strong defensively, but still, I get the impression that he really didn't play a safe stay-at-home style.

Bottom pairing is okay, I would have preferred a stronger bottom pairing to back up a weaker 2nd pairing. I see both guys as being good #6s or weak #5s in a draft this size.

Excellent spare defensemen.

Goaltending

Barrasso is a bottom tier goalie in this, and he's probably seeing a lot of rubber when your top pairing isn't on the ice. At least he's used to that from playing in Pittsburgh! Holmes is a solid backup with a "clutch" reputation. I expect him to play more than most backups.

Special Teams

1st PP is hurt by the lack of a true QB - no, I don't like Nieds there. Oates is below average overall, but will be great at getting the puck to Bossy (who is elite on the PP). Lindsay is an all-round offensive player and relentless in all areas of the ice - I don't know if he has the size to be a consistent net presence though.

2nd PP has a good group of players, with Hollett a real standout, but again, who is the net presence?

Pulford and Savard are elite on a PK and Graham is okay. Not at all sold on Dutton on a 1st unit PK.

Niedermayer needs to be on the 2nd PK over Kuzkin. Bourne is definitely a better choice than Sundin up front - leave Sundin as a spare PKer. Actually, Oates is probably a better option than Sundin as a spare PKer.

Actually, you should probably just keep the Savard-Niedermayer pairing together for the PK and stick Niedermayer on the 2nd PP

Overall
I like you somehow managed to put together a strong first line and a very solid first pairing, despite lacking a true #1 D or a true #1 C. You also have one of the best two-way third lines in the draft. Bowman will love a team with this much depth among the forwards. Tons of on-ice leadership

I have concerns about Weak 2nd pairing (especially when Hollett is riding the pine which will be often under Bowman), backed up by a 3rd pairing that is not awe-inspiring. Can Barrasso handle it? While Nieds is a strong player at even strength, where he can make full use of his skating, he really isn't a very good PP QB. Actually, I'm not sure if you have a great PP QB on the team (there's a reason teams draft defensemen early). You also seem to be lacking "net guys" on the PP in general. Some issues with your PK, but I think you can mostly fix them by shuffling your players.

Overall, a very solid first entry with fewer holes than expected of a first time GM.

 

[MadArcand]

Brind'amour is defintiely not the best #3 center in the draft, not with guys like Jacques Lemaire, Igor Larionov, Pavel Datsyuk, Neil Colville, and Sergei Fedorov/Dave Keon (whoever Reds ends up putting there) slumming it on 3rd lines in a 28 team draft. There are a few others I'd put at Brind'amour's level, but he is still an above average one.

I consider him the best traditional #3. Fedorov, Lemaire, Larionov and Datsyuk are #2s (and them being #3s on some teams means other teams have some really weak #2 centers), and I would say Brind'Amour is more effective #3 than Larionov anyway.

I considered Bowie at the point when I had him, but was told that he was better known for his shooting from in tight, rather than having a booming shot, so it wouldn't be the best use for him. Makes sense.

Yeah, but it would make the unit overall better regardless, no? Or Mosienko to playmake from the point?

I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of our Chicago fans on Toews' penalty killing, specifically why Chicago was so poor on the PK for those years when Toews was a top PKer (was it just goaltending?)

So would I.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Starting with 2 wingers is traditionally a losing strategy in the ATD, but you managed to build a pretty solid team despite that.

Coaching

On most all-time lists Bowman is the best. The man just got the most out of talented teams. He wasn't the most versatile coach though - he was always about defense-first, and you had to be a really special player (like Lafleur) for Bowman to let you freelance on the ice. He had a special distaste for one-way offensive centers and defensemen. He'll love Datsyuk, and I think he'll be fine with Oates and Sundin (though Sundin will surely see less ice time than Datsyuk as Bowman shuffles the lines). I see him having serious issues with Flash Hollett, who will likely find himself benched periodically.

Excellent on-ice leaders. You know you have a great leadership group when guys like Dirk Graham, Serge Savard, and Red Dutton don't need to wear letters. Heck, Kuzkin and Sundin could be wearing letters too. Definitely one of the best led teams in the draft.

Forwards

I think you took Bossy a little early, but you got good value on Lindsay, so it evens out. Oates isn't really a prototypical #1 center in the ATD, but considering the quality of his wingers, he doesn't need to be. The line doesn't have perfect chemistry - I don't see anyone to keep up with Lindsay in transition, and there is nobody to step in if he picks a fight with the wrong tough guy. But it still has good chemistry. The line isn't the best transition line, with the slow skating Oates at C. But regardless of all the complaints, it is still a strong first line with Lindsay's offensive versatility keeping it from being predictable.

Kovalchuk basically does his thing like a lesser Bobby Hull, and doesn't really use his linemates. So his best linemates are ones who can play with each other (and without the puck when Kovy is hogging it), cover defensively, and win the puck battles. Sundin is definitely a below average #2 center. He's also a decent fit, but not the perfect one. This line would have been better if you kept Datsyuk here, but I think the third line needed him more. Not a bad second line by any means.

One of my favorite 3rd lines in the draft. Datsyuk is such a good two-way player, and Pulford is one of the top 3rd line LWs in the draft. Pulford can also take faceoffs against bigger centers (Datsyuk's one weakness is lack of size and strength). Graham is fairly weak third liner in a draft this size, but he's still a legit one, and his linemates are elite for their roles.

4th line is a solid mix of different skillsets with O'Reilly the typical "goon who can play"

Spares are pretty meh, but won't hurt you.

Defense

I see Niedermayer as an elite #2 at even strength, but a less impressive one on special teams. Savard is also an elite #2. While you don't have that #1 defenseman teams really desire, you still managed to put together a pretty solid first pairing for even strength hockey, and I think these two will work well together.

2nd pairing is a team weakness - I see Hollett as an offensive-minded #4 who really needs a strong partner to cover for him. It's hard to get a read on Dutton, but I can't see him being better than an average #4 in a draft this size. He was Herb Gardiner's long time partner, and I got the impression that Herb was the cerebral, safe player, and Dutton was the one running around trying to create things (and smashing faces... lots of faces). So I don't know if Dutton would be the ideal partner for Hollett. I read his bio, and yes, Dutton seems to have been strong defensively, but still, I get the impression that he really didn't play a safe stay-at-home style.

Bottom pairing is okay, I would have preferred a stronger bottom pairing to back up a weaker 2nd pairing. I see both guys as being good #6s or weak #5s in a draft this size.

Excellent spare defensemen.

Goaltending

Barrasso is a bottom tier goalie in this, and he's probably seeing a lot of rubber when your top pairing isn't on the ice. At least he's used to that from playing in Pittsburgh! Holmes is a solid backup with a "clutch" reputation. I expect him to play more than most backups.

Special Teams

1st PP is hurt by the lack of a true QB - no, I don't like Nieds there. Oates is below average overall, but will be great at getting the puck to Bossy (who is elite on the PP). Lindsay is an all-round offensive player and relentless in all areas of the ice - I don't know if he has the size to be a consistent net presence though.

2nd PP has a good group of players, with Hollett a real standout, but again, who is the net presence?

Pulford and Savard are elite on a PK and Graham is okay. Not at all sold on Dutton on a 1st unit PK.

Niedermayer needs to be on the 2nd PK over Kuzkin. Bourne is definitely a better choice than Sundin up front - leave Sundin as a spare PKer. Actually, Oates is probably a better option than Sundin as a spare PKer.

Actually, you should probably just keep the Savard-Niedermayer pairing together for the PK and stick Niedermayer on the 2nd PP

Overall
I like you somehow managed to put together a strong first line and a very solid first pairing, despite lacking a true #1 D or a true #1 C. You also have one of the best two-way third lines in the draft. Bowman will love a team with this much depth among the forwards. Tons of on-ice leadership

I have concerns about Weak 2nd pairing (especially when Hollett is riding the pine which will be often under Bowman), backed up by a 3rd pairing that is not awe-inspiring. Can Barrasso handle it? While Nieds is a strong player at even strength, where he can make full use of his skating, he really isn't a very good PP QB. Actually, I'm not sure if you have a great PP QB on the team (there's a reason teams draft defensemen early). You also seem to be lacking "net guys" on the PP in general. Some issues with your PK, but I think you can mostly fix them by shuffling your players.

Overall, a very solid first entry with fewer holes than expected of a first time GM.

Thanks a ton for the review TDM! I won't argue much of anything you said.

I definitely agree with the assessment of my 2nd pairing defensively from the standpoint of Hollett not meshing with Bowman. I probably got caught up in the offensive #'s and went against my gut there for a more 2 way type player. I tried to minimize that by getting Dutton, who i do think can focus mainly on defensive duties under Bowman. He'll need to regardless.

In retrospect i think going for a true #3 Dman would have been the best strategy over one of the 2nd line F's. I don't mind having Barrasso, given the connection to Bowman and many of the past champions have won with lower tier #1's.

I think i'll shuffle a few players around like you mentioned above and try to maximize the skill sets for the special teams roles.

Thanks again good sir.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Edmonton Eskimos Review

Edmonton Eskimos

Coach : Jacques Lemaire
Assistant : Pete Muldoon

Captain - Lanny McDonald
Alt : Adam Foote, Woody Dumart

Woody Dumart --- Stan Mikita --- Cam Neely
Vincent Damphousse --- Peter Stastny --- Lanny McDonald
Harry Watson --- Igor Larionov --- Marian Gaborik
George Mantha --- Pit Lepine --- Jerry Toppazzini

Ex - Glen Skov (C/LW), Billy Boucher (RW)

Bill Quackenbush --- Tim Horton
Si Griffis --- Adam Foote
Hamby Shore --- Gennady Tsygankov

Ex - Wade Redden (D)

Ed Belfour
John Vanbiesbrouck

PP1: Si Griffis - Bill Quackenbush - Vincent Damphousse - Stan Mikita - Cam Neely
PP2: Hamby Shore - Tim Horton - Marian Gaborik - Peter Stastny - Lanny McDonald

PK1: Bill Quackenbush - Tim Horton - Pit Lepine - Jerry Toppazzini
PK2: Gennady Tsygankov - Adam Foote - Stan Mikita - Woody Dumart

​

Coaching and Leadership

Lemaire is a solid ATD coach, albeit a one-dimensional one. He's a guy who could really use an assistant who could act as an intermediary/players coach and to remind Lemaire that you can't win games 0 to -1. Someone like Larry Robinson in real life. Is Muldoon that kind of coach?

Leadership seems kind of weak - MacDonald was usually a co-captain (though he did win a Cup like that), Foote was never the leader for any decent team, and Dumart, meh. Griffis could probably wear in A. Not all that strong a group of leaders, but there are no real flakes on the team either (besides the billionaire in goal who is probably unchangeable anyway).

Forwards

Before getting into it line by line, it is quite obviously an excellent group of centers (1-4 the best in the draft?) flanked by a weak group of wingers. So you'll always have a good chance of controlling the play no matter who is there, but not necessarily have the finish.

Mikita is a great way to start any team obviously - excellent playmaker, can score some goals, great at faceoffs, pretty good defensively (I think his defense has traditionally been overrated here but he's still pretty good). With Lemaire at coach, you'll definitely get the more defensively oriented Mikita of the 70s than the more run-and-gun player of the 60s. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a strong wing to pass to. I see both wings are capable 1st line glue guys - Dumart as the all-rounder, Neely as the physically dominant power forward, but I don't like either as the 2nd best offensive player on a 1st line one bit. To be honest, their overall scoring resumes are pretty weak even for 1st line glue guys.

Stastny is above average for a second line but I don't think he's elite - compared to other teams, he's the least outstanding of your centers for his role but still above average). Relatively to other 2nd liners, I like the wings better than the ones on the first line. To be honest, there's a good case McDonald is a better offensive player than Neely, although he wasn't quite the physical monster. Damphousse is okay here as a two-way guy; in a 28 team draft, he's not a particularly good scoring line player, but he's not awful. Other than Damphousse, this line could struggle playing Lemaire's tight neutral zone trap. I realize that Stastny became a good two-way player in his last few years, but I'm still unconvinced he was anything but a scorer with a chip on his shoulder in his prime.

Poor Gaborik - he was desperate to leave Minnesota to get away from Lemaire; now he has him back! Anyway, Larionov is an elite 3rd liner at even strength, and Watson is a very physical player who was used to playing two-way hockey in a defensive system, so this line should be quite effective for you.

Lepine is an elite defensive player and is linemates are pretty good ones. Toppazzini's offense might be a bit wasted playing next to Lepine, but overall an effective line. I can see Lemaire putting Lepine out there for every defensive zone draw, regardless of the wingers.

Pretty versatile spares, though I don't know if Lemaire would have much use for Boucher.

Defense

One of my favorite first pairings in the draft - the beastly Horton (an average #1) and the Lidstrom-lite Quackenbush (a fringe #1/#2) are the perfect fits for each other, forming probably the best shut down pairing in the draft. They won't provide that much complimentary offense, but then Lemaire doesn't let his defensemen get involved offensively anyway, and they certainly have enough skill to move the puck to the forwards effectively.

Second pairing is less impressive - I see Griffis as a #4 puck mover and Foote as a guy who would be better served on a bottom pairing. Good fit, but you could have really used a good #3 to push them both down the depth chart.

Lots of good options for the bottom pairing, at first I thought that Shore should sit for Redden, but Shore's wikipedia page actually lists a pretty impressive array of recognition that he got as a great player. Either way, you have lots of options here, and no matter who you pair with Tsygankov, it will be a very strong bottom pairing. I can see your bottom pairing getting more ice time than most bottom pairings, and your second pairing getting less than most.

Goaltending

I don't think Crazy Eddie was the best goaltender when you drafted him, but he's a solid one who won't lose you games. Vanbiesbrouck is actually flirting with being "too good" of a backup for Belfour, due to Belfour's history of throwing temper tantrums when challenged by a backup, but I think he's probably the right balance of good without being too good. Beezer's laid back attitude should help.

Special Teams

Pretty weak 1st PP. Mikita is great of course, but the wings aren't so great and the pointmen are only a little better.

Stastny on the 2nd PP is quite the luxury, Gaborik most definitely is not. Your two best offensive players are clearly Mikita and Stastny; is there anyway to get them on the first PP together? Why do I think that McDonald was a better PP player than Neely?

Your first PK is awesome - the best of any of the teams I've reviewed thus far. Toppazzini was quite the PK player in time, largely due to his relentless forechecking. With Lepine and Toppazzini on the 4th line, I see them getting big minutes on the PK.

2nd PK is pretty good too.

Overall

I like - one of the best top pairings in the draft, and a perfect fit for Lemaire's style. Perhaps the best group of centers 1-4 in the draft. Excellent #1 PK. Strong depth defensemen.

I have concerns about - lack of scoring from the wingers hurts you at even strength but really hurts on the PP (the Neely pick really hurts here but I also think Dumart is consistently overdrafted). You could have really used a good #3 defenseman to push Griffis and Foote down the depth chart. 2nd line could struggle at times playing Lemaire's system. No standout #1 QB for the PP

Overall, a team with some huge strengths that really wow you, but also some weaknesses in key areas. Good first team.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Coaching and Leadership

Lemaire is a solid ATD coach, albeit a one-dimensional one. He's a guy who could really use an assistant who could act as an intermediary/players coach and to remind Lemaire that you can't win games 0 to -1. Someone like Larry Robinson in real life. Is Muldoon that kind of coach?

Leadership seems kind of weak - MacDonald was usually a co-captain (though he did win a Cup like that), Foote was never the leader for any decent team, and Dumart, meh. Griffis could probably wear in A. Not all that strong a group of leaders, but there are no real flakes on the team either (besides the billionaire in goal who is probably unchangeable anyway).

Forwards

Before getting into it line by line, it is quite obviously an excellent group of centers (1-4 the best in the draft?) flanked by a weak group of wingers. So you'll always have a good chance of controlling the play no matter who is there, but not necessarily have the finish.

Mikita is a great way to start any team obviously - excellent playmaker, can score some goals, great at faceoffs, pretty good defensively (I think his defense has traditionally been overrated here but he's still pretty good). With Lemaire at coach, you'll definitely get the more defensively oriented Mikita of the 70s than the more run-and-gun player of the 60s. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a strong wing to pass to. I see both wings are capable 1st line glue guys - Dumart as the all-rounder, Neely as the physically dominant power forward, but I don't like either as the 2nd best offensive player on a 1st line one bit. To be honest, their overall scoring resumes are pretty weak even for 1st line glue guys.

Stastny is above average for a second line but I don't think he's elite - compared to other teams, he's the least outstanding of your centers for his role but still above average). Relatively to other 2nd liners, I like the wings better than the ones on the first line. To be honest, there's a good case McDonald is a better offensive player than Neely, although he wasn't quite the physical monster. Damphousse is okay here as a two-way guy; in a 28 team draft, he's not a particularly good scoring line player, but he's not awful. Other than Damphousse, this line could struggle playing Lemaire's tight neutral zone trap. I realize that Stastny became a good two-way player in his last few years, but I'm still unconvinced he was anything but a scorer with a chip on his shoulder in his prime.

Poor Gaborik - he was desperate to leave Minnesota to get away from Lemaire; now he has him back! Anyway, Larionov is an elite 3rd liner at even strength, and Watson is a very physical player who was used to playing two-way hockey in a defensive system, so this line should be quite effective for you.

Lepine is an elite defensive player and is linemates are pretty good ones. Toppazzini's offense might be a bit wasted playing next to Lepine, but overall an effective line. I can see Lemaire putting Lepine out there for every defensive zone draw, regardless of the wingers.

Pretty versatile spares, though I don't know if Lemaire would have much use for Boucher.

Defense

One of my favorite first pairings in the draft - the beastly Horton (an average #1) and the Lidstrom-lite Quackenbush (a fringe #1/#2) are the perfect fits for each other, forming probably the best shut down pairing in the draft. They won't provide that much complimentary offense, but then Lemaire doesn't let his defensemen get involved offensively anyway, and they certainly have enough skill to move the puck to the forwards effectively.

Second pairing is less impressive - I see Griffis as a #4 puck mover and Foote as a guy who would be better served on a bottom pairing. Good fit, but you could have really used a good #3 to push them both down the depth chart.

Lots of good options for the bottom pairing, at first I thought that Shore should sit for Redden, but Shore's wikipedia page actually lists a pretty impressive array of recognition that he got as a great player. Either way, you have lots of options here, and no matter who you pair with Tsygankov, it will be a very strong bottom pairing. I can see your bottom pairing getting more ice time than most bottom pairings, and your second pairing getting less than most.

Goaltending

I don't think Crazy Eddie was the best goaltender when you drafted him, but he's a solid one who won't lose you games. Vanbiesbrouck is actually flirting with being "too good" of a backup for Belfour, due to Belfour's history of throwing temper tantrums when challenged by a backup, but I think he's probably the right balance of good without being too good. Beezer's laid back attitude should help.

Special Teams

Pretty weak 1st PP. Mikita is great of course, but the wings aren't so great and the pointmen are only a little better.

Stastny on the 2nd PP is quite the luxury, Gaborik most definitely is not. Your two best offensive players are clearly Mikita and Stastny; is there anyway to get them on the first PP together? Why do I think that McDonald was a better PP player than Neely?

Your first PK is awesome - the best of any of the teams I've reviewed thus far. Toppazzini was quite the PK player in time, largely due to his relentless forechecking. With Lepine and Toppazzini on the 4th line, I see them getting big minutes on the PK.

2nd PK is pretty good too.

Overall

I like - one of the best top pairings in the draft, and a perfect fit for Lemaire's style. Perhaps the best group of centers 1-4 in the draft. Excellent #1 PK. Strong depth defensemen.

I have concerns about - lack of scoring from the wingers hurts you at even strength but really hurts on the PP (the Neely pick really hurts here but I also think Dumart is consistently overdrafted). You could have really used a good #3 defenseman to push Griffis and Foote down the depth chart. 2nd line could struggle at times playing Lemaire's system. No standout #1 QB for the PP

Overall, a team with some huge strengths that really wow you, but also some weaknesses in key areas. Good first team.

Thanks for the review, after I picked Stastny I knew wingers were going to be weak. Would you suggest switching McDonald and Neely?

Like this?

Woody Dumart --- Stan Mikita --- Lanny McDonald
Vincent Damphousse --- Peter Stastny --- Cam Neely
Harry Watson --- Igor Larionov --- Marian Gaborik
George Mantha --- Pit Lepine --- Jerry Toppazzini

And based on your comments on my PP, I've switch it up to

PP1: Si Griffis - Bill Quackenbush - Peter Stastny - Stan Mikita - Lanny McDonald
PP2: Hamby Shore - Tim Horton - Marian Gaborik - Igor Larionov - Cam Neely

And thank you for all the things under like

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the review, after I picked Stastny I knew wingers were going to be weak. Would you suggest switching McDonald and Neely?

Like this?

Woody Dumart --- Stan Mikita --- Lanny McDonald
Vincent Damphousse --- Peter Stastny --- Cam Neely
Harry Watson --- Igor Larionov --- Marian Gaborik
George Mantha --- Pit Lepine --- Jerry Toppazzini

And based on your comments on my PP, I've switch it up to

PP1: Si Griffis - Bill Quackenbush - Peter Stastny - Stan Mikita - Lanny McDonald
PP2: Hamby Shore - Tim Horton - Marian Gaborik - Igor Larionov - Cam Neely

And thank you for all the things under like

Might as well leave Neely on the first line at even strength - glancing quickly over the stats, McDonald is better on the PP but no better at even strength as a scorer, and if McDonald was physical, Neely was megaphysical, so he does have that advantage at even strenth. When I did your review, I remember Sturminator pointing out in the past that McDonald got an unusually high percentage of his points on the PP

I like the new PP a lot better - slightly pass-happy up front, but what can you do?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Halifax review

This team hasn't been reviewed yet. It's a shame that your busy season at work is always during the second half of the ATD, because you always get off to such a strong start. Anyway, I think this is a really interesting team.

Sorry for the delay gents, here are the Citadels:

Halifax Citadels

GM: Stoneberg
Coach: Pat Burns
Captian: Armstrong
Alternate Captains: Smith, St. Louis

Roster
Roy Conacher - Marcel Dionne - Wayne Cashman
Alf Smith (A) - Bernie Morris - Martin St. Louis (A)
Bruce Stuart - Edgar Laprade - George Armstrong (C)
Rick Nash - Pete Mahovlich - Mario Tremblay

Ching Johnson - Eddie Shore
Allan Stanley - Terry Harper
Frank Patrick - Kimmo Timonen

Terry Sawchuk
Alec Connell

Spares: Reggie Fleming - F/D, Jack Portland - D, Jaroslav Jirik - W, Art Chapman - C

1st PP Unit
Conacher - Dionne - Smith
Patrick - Shore

2nd PP Unit
Nash - Morris - St. Louis
Stanley - Timonen

PK Forwards
Laprade - Armstrong
Mahovlich - St. Louis

PK Defensemen
Johnson - Harper
Stanley - Shore
​

Thinking of switching Patrick and Harper.

Coaching and leadership

Pat Burns prefers defense over offense, but most of all, he demands hard work and accountability. He'll love your defense, but could have issues with Dionne or Pete Mahovlich when they go through their lazy spells.

George Armstrong is one of the most legendary leaders of all-time, and was a very great pick for you, considering not all that many other natural leaders in the rest of your team. Alf Smith is a decent A at least.

Forwards

Dionne is a great offensive #1 C in the regular season, but teams had a history of shutting him down in the playoffs when they could focus on him, so I wish you had gotten him better wingers to take the pressure off him. I think you know by now what I think of Cashman - great grinder and glue guy, but not all that much of a scorer at this level. Conacher is a good goal scorer, but nothing else - this line will really depend heavily on Dionne to create things.

Morris is a decent offensive-minded C and St. Louis is an excellent player for a 2nd line. Alf Smith is somewhat interchangeable with Cashman IMO - probably a better playmaker but not as big. This line seems really pass-happy to me.

Suggestion:

Cashman - Dionne - St Louis
Conacher - Morris - Smith

I like this set up better for a few reasons:

1) It gives Dionne as skilled playmaker on the wing, so he doesn't have to create everything himself. Dionne could both score and pass himself.

2) If you're going to draft Cashman, might as well get full use of his bodyguard abilities.

3) It lets you play Cashman on the correct side - every since seventieslord used him as a RW in ATD2011 based on a few quotes that he sometimes played on the right side, everyone seems to use him there. But Cashman's prime was on Esposito's LEFT side.

4) Morris and Smith were both pass-first players, so I like Conacher as their shooter. Alf Smith played RW at least as much as LW, IIRC.

__________

IMO, Armstrong is an elite 3rd liner - excellent in corners, strong defensively, better scorer than most checkers here, and very clutch. He was slow, but it didn't seem to hurt his performance in real life much. Laprade is a decent 3rd line C - small, fast, puck ragger, decent playmaker. Could have trouble defending bigger Cs, but a good 3rd liner otherwise. Bruce Stuart kind of brings the unit down - he was a HUGE man (basically a Lindros or Chara size compared to others in his era) and really fast too, but I don't know much about his defensive game and his offensive game is just so-so. I love him as a 4th liner, don't like him so much on a checking line.

Good two-way 4th line. Mahovlich could be lazy at times, but at his best, he was a pretty good two-way player who could fight. Also a very big man.

Solid group of spares, not entirely sold on Jaroslav Jirki in the main draft, but it doesn't matter all that much.

Defense

Your first pairing might be the most physical pairing ever constructed in the ATD - yikes. Shore is elite and IMO Ching Johnson is one of the top defensive minded #2s in this thing. Excellent first pairing. The only downside is that they will be prone to penalties.

Your 2nd pairing is also physical and strong defensively with Stanley providing a decent outlet pass. Stanley's an elite #3; I see Harper more as a #5 in a draft this size, but they even out to about average. Will be strong in their own zone, but not so good outside it. Stanley's slow skating could be an issue.

Third pairing is a bit offensive-minded, though I guess Timonen was pretty stay-at-home at even strength. Patrick is an excellent #5 and Timonen is a solid #6.

You asked about switching Patrick and Harper - I would do it. I see both as weak #4s, excellent #5s in a 28 team draft, but like the fit better with Patrick next to Stanley.

You got Jack Portland as a #7? Damn... he's better than most #6s in this thing, IMO. Great physical stay at home guy with a good All-Star record and lots of career value.

Goaltending

Sawchuk can be overrated IMO, but he's still a very strong goalie here - one of the near-consensus top 7. Connell is a below average backup... if that matters to anyone.

Special Teams

Your emphasis on defense, goaltending, and physicality gave you a pretty weak PP no matter how you set it up, but I think I have an idea that can make it better.

St. Louis needs to be next to Dionne on the first PP - not only is the fit better, but he's clearly a better overall offensive player than Roy Conacher. Leave Morris-Conacher as the basis of the 2nd unit. As for the net guys... I honestly have no idea. I almost want to say Rick Nash on the first PP, not that he'd be good there, but he might be less bad than the other options. I'm not at all convinced that Cashman or Alf Smith was better offensively than George Armstrong.

Shore is an excellent PP guys; the rest of the defensemen are fine for their roles - any issue with your PP is with the forwards.

Your PK forwards are average, though I would have preferred something better considering how many penalties your team will likely take - ideally someone to bump Armstrong to the second PK and St Louis to being a spare.

PK defensemen are very strong - Johnson is elite, and you have 3 more guys who could be on the first unit (which is good because your defense will be very penalty prone). So no matter how your arrange them, your 2nd PK pair will be well above the norm.

Overall

I like: Excellent first pairing that is mega-physical. Overall, a strong group of defensemen 1-7 backed up by Terry Sawchuk. You lack a strong #4 but make up for it with an elite #3.

I have concerns about - your "glue guys" really don't provide that much offense; this especially hurts your PP. I don't see a left wing who is particularly strong defensively (Cashman and Smith are okay, but not guys I would count on as checkers at this level). Team could be prone to penalties - not just from the defense but also guys like Wayne Cashman and Alf Smith, especially without much secondary leadership (though Armstrong is a fantastic captain). Dionne may struggle in the postseason if he is "the guy."

 

[BraveCanadian]

Pittsburgh Hornets​

GM: 87and71
Head Coach: Scotty Bowman
Captain: Ted Lindsay
Alternate Captain: Daniel Alfredsson
Alternate Captain: Scott Niedermayer

With Bowman as coach you have what most people consider to be the best professional hockey coach ever. Enough said.

I am not that big on crusty but Lindsay and Niedermayer even on their own mean that leadership isn't an issue.

As TDMM said in his review, you have lots of leadership throughout the team as well.

Ted Lindsay C - Adam Oates - Mike Bossy

With Lindsay as the all around glue guy who can still provide high level offense, Oates as the elite playmaker and Bossy as the elite sniper this line has all the needed pieces. Oates is the weak link obviously but his two strengths are just what is needed (faceoffs and playmaking).

Against physical defenses and checkers, though, Lindsay is going to have to do a lot of the tough work because Oates and Bossy aren't going to wear down anyone.

Ilya Kovalchuk - Mats Sundin - Daniel Alfredsson A

Kovalchuk is one of those completely enigmatic players to me. One day he is the best player in the world and the next he is invisible.

As an offensive player Kovalchuk is a bit better than even my first liner Goulet but it is his consistency and effort that are in question.

Sundin is meh here. I'm a Leafs fan and Sundin is basically a better goal scoring but worse defensively and much worse playmaking version of Francis. Long term consistency is a big part of both their career values but Sundin has even less outstanding than Francis.

Alfredsson is Crusty to me but pretty decent as a defensively responsible winger in this.. but nothing special.

Bob Pulford - Pavel Datsyuk - Dirk Graham

Datsyuk is an outstanding player doing what he does. He is better offensively and defensively than Sundin, imo. Pulford and Graham are very hard workers and good checkers so you're somewhat wasting Datsyuk's ability with them, although I suppose Pulford can take advantage of Datsyuk's playmaking.

As a checking line they will be good and have some counter attack.

Bob Bourne - Bernie Nicholls - Terry O'Reilly

Bunch of spare parts here. Bourne is a pretty good two way player, Nicholls as underrated offensive player, O'Reilly all energy.

Serge Savard - Scott Niedermayer A

Nice pairing. Savard as the very solid stay at home guy giving Niedermayer the green light somewhat.

Both have that winning pedigree too.

Flash Hollett - Red Dutton

Flash gives you an speed skating offensive defenseman but I'm not sure Dutton is the guy to anchor the pairing and clean up the inevitable mistakes. He'll give it his all but I don't think it is enough.

Probably below average pairing.

Viktor Kuzkin - Ken Morrow

I like both of these guys individually but they are pretty average here.

Nikolai Sologubov Willie Mitchell

Good spares.. I was considering Mitchell for my pure defensive backup when I decided to take Arbour both because it was funny and so TDMM would shutup about my supposed bias to more modern players. (it is only true in so much that I have a lot more knowledge of them!)

Tom Barrasso
Hap Holmes

Barrasso is a weaker starter in this.. backups whatever.

Power Play 1:

Ted Lindsay - Adam Oates - Mike Bossy
Ilya Kovalchuk - Flash Hollett

The first line we have more of the same.. Kovalchuk gives you a rocket from the point and Hollett is a good offensive defenseman but 1st PP unit in the ATD good?

Power Play 2:

Mats Sundin - Pavel Datsyuk - Daniel Alfredsson
Scott Niedermayer - Viktor Kuzkin

Sundin coming off the boards with his right handed shot could work, I guess. At first glance not a very strong unit as a whole.


Penalty Kill 1:
Bob Pulford - Dirk Graham
Serge Savard - Red Dutton[/quote]

Looks pretty good to me except my fairly complete lack of knowledge about Dutton.

Penalty Kill 2:

Bob Bourne/Craig MacTavish - Daniel Alfredsson
Scott Niedermayer - Ken Morrow

Below average I would have to think.

Overview:

*snip* Oh my god TLDR.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Coaching and leadership

Pat Burns prefers defense over offense, but most of all, he demands hard work and accountability. He'll love your defense, but could have issues with Dionne or Pete Mahovlich when they go through their lazy spells.

George Armstrong is one of the most legendary leaders of all-time, and was a very great pick for you, considering not all that many other natural leaders in the rest of your team. Alf Smith is a decent A at least.

Just wanted to pipe in here and say that I bet Burns would have loved a guy like Armstrong. He preferred captains/leaders who lead by example.

As an example: His first challenge to Gilmour in Toronto was for Gilmour (obviously Toronto's best player) to also be the hardest worker in every practice to set the standard.

Suggestion:

Cashman - Dionne - St Louis
Conacher - Morris - Smith

I like this set up better for a few reasons:

1) It gives Dionne as skilled playmaker on the wing, so he doesn't have to create everything himself. Dionne could both score and pass himself.

2) If you're going to draft Cashman, might as well get full use of his bodyguard abilities.

3) It lets you play Cashman on the correct side - every since seventieslord used him as a RW in ATD2011 based on a few quotes that he sometimes played on the right side, everyone seems to use him there. But Cashman's prime was on Esposito's LEFT side.

4) Morris and Smith were both pass-first players, so I like Conacher as their shooter. Alf Smith played RW at least as much as LW, IIRC.

Agree 100%, do this!

IMO, Armstrong is an elite 3rd liner - excellent in corners, strong defensively, better scorer than most checkers here, and very clutch. He was slow, but it didn't seem to hurt his performance in real life much.

Every draft you convince me a little more. Not that I had all that far to go as a Leafs fan.

Overall

I like: Excellent first pairing that is mega-physical. Overall, a strong group of defensemen 1-7 backed up by Terry Sawchuk. You lack a strong #4 but make up for it with an elite #3.

Against any teams without some sandpaper up front these guys could really shut down the opposition.

As you said though, that physicality with some weaknesses on the special teams might be this teams undoing in other matchups.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Sorry I'm late to the party.....

GM: Modo
Head Coach: Roger Nielson
Captain: Steve Yzerman
A.Captain: Steve Larmer
A.Captain: Sid Smith

Valeri Kharlamov - Steve Yzerman - Steve Larmer
Sid Smith - Mike Modano - Brett Hull
Yvon Lambert - Vyacheslav Starshinov - Ed Litzenberger
Brian Rolston - Tod Sloan - Pat Verbeek
x - Dick Irvin, Jan Erixon

Jack Stewart - Fern Flaman
Vitaly Davydov - "Bullet" Joe Simpson
Pat Stapleton - Don Awrey
x - Fred Lake, Oldrich Machac

Hugh Lehman
Gerry Cheevers

PP1: Kharlamov - Yzerman - Hull - Stewart - Simpson
PP2: Smith - Modano - Larmer - Stapleton - Flaman

PK1: Modano - Larmer - Flaman - Davydov
PK2: Litzenberger - Sloan - Awrey - Simpson
​

Coaching and Leadership:

Nielson is a little in over his head as a tactician at this level IMO, but at least he has a great locker room energy. Stevie Y is a captain's captain, and one of the best of all time. The secondary leadership on the team isn't as strong, but it's not like it's a huge deal and Yzerman can handle a lot of the leadership anyways.

Forwards:

Extreme talent with Yzerman and Kharlamov. I vehemently disagree with people who say Makarov is better than Kharlamov. Valeri is a game breaker, silky smooth hands, dangerous whenever he's on the ice. Yzerman is a complete hockey player, another silky smooth guy with a right hand shot which is huge and he can snipe from anywhere in the offensive zone. Larmer is barely acceptable as a 2nd liner IMO, so obviously he's weak up there on line #1, but none the less it's very talented and I think they would do well in the season.

Line 2 has an elite sniper in Hull and a pretty decent 200 foot player in Modano. Modano has great size and wheels and can cover for Hull defensively, he's also a decent set up man (but IMO, not elite, I think Brett really could use better playmaking). Sid Smith brings some decent hands and ability, but I would have much rather seen some toughness here I know you know my opinion about your top 6.

They will score more than most 3rd lines but I hate the chemistry. With the make up of your top two lines I definitely would have rather seen defence-first from the 3rd line. Starshinov is gritty and a pretty good goalscorer not afraid to crash the net, but the wings aren't on his dimension offensively and neither stand out as backcheckers (unless im missing something).

Way more talent on the 4th line than usual, but again, I would have preferred thuggery-based play from your 4th line in all honesty.

Defence:

Top pair lacks a #1, which hurts. Stewart is more like one of the better #2's, and Flaman I view as more of a good physical #3 at 28 teams. They are extremely physical, however, which the team really needed.

I just don't see it in the second pair either. Neither guy screams's great #3 or #4. Like Billy said you should try and get Stapleton up there, even if you're not comfortable with chemistry he's wasting away with 3rd pair minutes.

Goal:

Lehman is ok, slightly below average. I still think Cheevers is an above average backup so generally I think you're pretty solid between the pipes.

Modo, you always seems to start off with a bang, and then let it slip in the later rounds (which is understandable, as it gets harder and harder to be passionate later on.) This is a team with huge problem's on defence and just average to below average goaltending. There is some talent up front, but really not enough team defence and I don't really trust Neilson if the plan is for run and gun games. I look forward to seeing where you finish in the season and good job on another pretty good entry with just some depth questions.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Thanks again for the review, m_b!

Looks like it'll be 0-3 after this year's entry based on the feedback I'm getting, but I'll be back next year to try again.