The MLD 2012 Assassination Thread

[tarheelhockey]

IMO we just allow the people who want to participate do that. If people don't care, they can just ignore it.

Forcing lists is pointless. If somebody doesn't want to do it, they'll just half-ass their list, which is more damaging than not submitting one. Furthermore, the people who aren't interested in discussion are going to be the same way, so there's no point.

Then the conversation gets dominated by a few verbose personalities (not that there's anything wrong with being one of those forumers) which WILL influence the voting.

I'd say secret ballots are preferable to voluntary sharing.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Then the conversation gets dominated by a few verbose personalities (not that there's anything wrong with being one of those forumers) which WILL influence the voting.

I'd say secret ballots are preferable to voluntary sharing.

I understand these concerns but here's the thing though, will those same verbose personalities generate similar sway in a discussion that follows a list of 5 of their own players? My thoughts are probably, which is why I'd actually prefer to open ended discussion 70s is proposing.

Either way the meat and potatoes of the voting will be hashed out in the discussions in this thread (or whatever thread will hold AST discussions). It's just a matter of what precedes the discussion. I think that by having as many people as they wish to contribute names (without restrictions to their own team and a limit of 5) we can just be more direct about the process.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Limits

I understand these concerns but here's the thing though, will those same verbose personalities generate similar sway in a discussion that follows a list of 5 of their own players? My thoughts are probably, which is why I'd actually prefer to open ended discussion 70s is proposing.

Either way the meat and potatoes of the voting will be hashed out in the discussions in this thread (or whatever thread will hold AST discussions). It's just a matter of what precedes the discussion. I think that by having as many people as they wish to contribute names (without restrictions to their own team and a limit of 5) we can just be more direct about the process.

Strict limits on length and time of discussions work best.

Meat and potatoes of the voting will be hashed out is another way of saying that now that everyone has had a look at the complete teams except that GMed by Selfish Man we will all look for the voting system that is most beneficial to our team.Adapt the rules so your team can win.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Strict limits on length and time of discussions work best.

Meat and potatoes of the voting will be hashed out is another way of saying that now that everyone has had a look at the complete teams except that GMed by Selfish Man we will all look for the voting system that is most beneficial to our team.Adapt the rules so your team can win.

Lined that one up perfectly in your cross-sights, the mascot was no joke I see?

The meat and potatoes of the voting refer to the fact that despite I have some ideas on who the absolute best out there is, it would be incredibly premature for me to conclude that rounds of discussion will have no bearing on those opinions. If you'd like to take that a different way feel free, but I'd venture a guess nobody who has participated in one of these minor drafts with me shares that interpretation.

I'd be saying the same thing if it meant I could have all of my drafted players labeled all-stars or 0, is that really necessary of me to say?

 

[tarheelhockey]

MONTREAL MAROONS

Randy Carlyle

Zach Parise - Syl Apps Jr. - Jiri Lala
Alex Tanguay - Dave Gagner - Joe Carveth
Shawn Burr - Mike Ricci - Grant Warwick
Carl Liscombe - Mike Fisher - Mike Grier
Mark Napier - Oren Frood

Pekka Rautakallio - Jay Bouwmeester
Uwe Krupp - Darryl Sydor
Doug Crossman - Baldy Spittal
Marek Zidlicky

Jean-Sébastien Giguère
Dwayne Roloson
Jose Theodore
​

1st Forward Line
The first thing I noticed when looking at this roster was "Parise is a perfect player for Randy Carlyle". Great combination of player and coach. Apps is the playmaker, Lala is the goal scorer (with passing ability), Parise is the boards guy. Pretty much a typical first-line setup. There is the obvious question -- precisely how good was Lala? Is he a good, middling or weak first-liner in this league?

2nd Forward Line
Interesting chemistry on this line. The playmaking comes primarily from Tanguay on the left wing, with Gagner as the primary finisher down the middle. Carveth is a quietly excellent pick who led the league in playoff points in '45 AND played a big role in the Wings' 0-3 rally for the Cup in '43. Tanguay and Gagner have a little less on their playoff resumes, but each has had a strong run at some point. I can't see any major problems here, very solid second line.

3rd Forward Line
I feel like Burr might be in over his head as a 3rd liner. His offensive peak of 22 and 24 goals wasn't much in the mid/late 80s, and the rest of his career he was more or less a checking winger. Mike Ricci is a great defensive center at this level and Warwick is solid in both directions. My concern is that you could have a great defensive line that has trouble creating offense, which in turn makes them not such a great defensive line.

4th Forward Line
Fisher and Grier are two modern guys who have quietly had solid two-way careers. I'm not sure I'd want Fisher up against really high-end offensive players, but he provides better than average offense of his own as a 4C. Liscombe is a player I'd find problematic on a 4th line. For one thing, aside from the WWII-weakened years he was basically an AHL superstar with little to speak of in the way of NHL success. That's not an insurmountable problem, but the fact that he was primarily a stickhandling, goal-scoring type makes me question his viability on a defensive line.

Spares
Frood is a really solid option as a scoring LW, Napier a little less solid but still an option in a scoring role. Not sure what happens if you lose a center or a bottom-pairing winger.

Overall, your top-6 is fantastic and your bottom-6 is oddly arranged. I suggest dropping Burr to your 4th line and either moving Liscombe up to the 3rd, or scratching him in favor of Frood.


1st Defensive Pair
I see Rautakallio-Bouwmeester as kind of similar to the famous Lidstrom-Murphy pairing. Not a lot of flash and dash, but both guys know where to be, and when to be there. The one issue I could see is a lack of physicality which, as we saw with the Wings' famous pairing, can be extremely effective against some opponents but is not a universally successful configuration. And maybe more troubling, this is supposed to work under Randy Carlyle's guidance. Not sure how that is going to turn out.

2nd Defensive Pair
I love Sydor, always have. He's well placed here. Krupp had trouble staying healthy so he's a likely guy to need a spare. As long as they're together, I think this is a solid pairing. Presumably this is the shutdown pairing.

3rd Defensive Pair
A weird pairing, IMO. Crossman was a pure offensive defenseman, Spittal was a part-time rover. Who is going to do the defending? Also, as I take the rules of MLD Spittal would be considered a suspension risk.

Spare
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't like the Zidlicky pick. His Euro-league experience doesn't bring much to the table and his NHL resume is thin. More concerning is that you have two guys who are likely to be out of the lineup -- Krupp for injury, Spittal for suspension -- and only one spare player.

Overall, you have an interesting and diverse group of defenders. The first two units seem to have clearly defined roles. I'm really not sure what's going to happen with that third group when they're facing down an opposing rush.

Goalies
Giguere-Roloson-Theodore is a colorful group. Giguere is a fantastic playoff goalie, and Roloson has had his fair share of big moments as well. Theodore IMO is seriously underrated due to never having reached that Hart level again. I can't see you going wrong with any of them, but I have to ask: why pick three goalies?

Coaching
Carlyle is a solid MLD coach and there are certain players here that he would love -- Parise, Gagner, Ricci, Sydor. But I'm not sure guys like Liscombe, Napier, Crossman and possibly even Bouwmeester would really thrive under him. The centers are perfect for Carlyle, as are the goalies (Giguere is a particularly savvy choice for him).

Special Teams
Not posted?



In sum, you have a team that could really do well at winning low-scoring games. You have two defensive pairings who will give your opponents a tough time, and three goalies who can take advantage of low shot quality. You have a top-6 which will be very good at both ends, and a handful of excellent defensive forwards. There are several strong playoff performers scattered throughout. This all plays right into Randy Carlyle's playbook.

The lower forward lines and defensive pair need some tuning up, primarily to get soft players out of defensive positions. I'm not sure about your depth in spares, after adjustments are made. Also not sure how 3 goalies is going to work, but you might have a master plan behind that.

 

[vecens24]

Then the conversation gets dominated by a few verbose personalities (not that there's anything wrong with being one of those forumers) which WILL influence the voting.

I'd say secret ballots are preferable to voluntary sharing.

Having said what I said earlier about having no problem with seventies sharing his list (honestly like I said, basically it's just to generate discussion more than anything), I do think the most beneficial thing would be EVERYONE sharing a list or NO ONE sharing a list. But that's not exactly likely since it's basically impossible to get 5 people to agree on any single matter, let alone the 18-20 GMs we have here.

Basically I just hope this place is somewhere where we can foster discussion about players, and figure out where they lay in the grand scheme of things, regardless of teams. Obviously the owners of said players will be the biggest proponent of their skills, but at the same time someone shilling their player at least fosters the discussion in some manner, be it biased or not. We can help refute said biases by coming up with refutations to what the owner believes.

But no matter what, some conversation is better than none.

EDIT: just a simple thing that tarheel said:

I actually like Fisher here a lot. He has two top 5's in Selke voting, plus at least 3 other years of relevant voting. He's probably one of the better bottom six players here, especially defensively due to his okay offensive ability and very solid defensive ability.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I understand these concerns but here's the thing though, will those same verbose personalities generate similar sway in a discussion that follows a list of 5 of their own players? My thoughts are probably, which is why I'd actually prefer to open ended discussion 70s is proposing.

Either way the meat and potatoes of the voting will be hashed out in the discussions in this thread (or whatever thread will hold AST discussions). It's just a matter of what precedes the discussion. I think that by having as many people as they wish to contribute names (without restrictions to their own team and a limit of 5) we can just be more direct about the process.

I've also never been through one of these, so take my opinion as that of someone who only knows how this goes in theory

One last thought and I'll shut up for today -- our individual purpose here is to win, but our collective purpose is to cultivate knowledge of these players. So anything that encourages more discussion, both in quantity and quality, is a good thing for our collective purpose regardless how it affects the outcome of the game.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I guess a possible question here for the secon line is: do you think Swapping Grosso and Keeling makes sense. Definitely a better playmaker.

It's a tough one. A Grosso-Breen-Bernier line definitely takes some of the playmaking pressure off Bernier.

But it becomes pretty soft without Keeling's physicality, right? Also, replacing Grosso with Keeling on the third line lowers its defense, and Vignealt definitely wants a line he can give defensive zone draws to.

Also regarding centers, Herbert and Grosso were both versatile center/wingers . Grosso seems to have played center during his career year with Abel playing left wing. Herbert's career year was when he was on a line with Carson Cooper who was a right winger so I'm assuming he spent that year at center as well, but I haven't checked the newspapers on that one like I have with Grosso's.

Didn't think about that; you're fine if a C goes down then.

Honestly if I were to double-shift any defenseman on the PP (ignoring TOI management), it'd be Weldy Young. That's how valuable I think he was offensively, but I'm just not sure I'll be able to demonstrate it. Mike Grant is an ATDer based on his offense and he scored 10 goals from 1893 to 1900. During that period Weldy had 11 goals according to Trail and we know his career started a few years earlier. I think his game would be great on the PP and his rushing abilities would be great for zone entries just to begin with. .

The case for Mike Grant is primarily anecdotal, not statistical - widely considered the best defenseman of the 1890s by a pretty fair margin.

Re: your PK, Koivu seems prett good for the first unit, though he lacks longevity as a top PKer. Fairbairn's stats are okay but nothing special really; I'd still rather have him on a second unit, especially considering the relative lack of anecdotes about his PKing

 

[tarheelhockey]

I actually like Fisher here a lot. He has two top 5's in Selke voting, plus at least 3 other years of relevant voting. He's probably one of the better bottom six players here, especially defensively due to his okay offensive ability and very solid defensive ability.

Fisher's Selkes are from an era when consideration is given primarily to players who put up good offensive numbers while also playing respectable D. I think he's a very solid defensive center, and agree that his offense is a huge plus for multiple reasons. Just not sure about him up against players who are going to deny him puck possession and force him to play pure defense for a whole shift.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Tarheel, you asked about Jiri Lala. If you believe the people who voted for the Izvestia Golden Stick award for the best player in Europe (who I believe were writers from all over Europe), then Lala is the best European player in the MLD

 

[vecens24]

The case for Mike Grant is primarily anecdotal, not statistical - widely considered the best defenseman of the 1890s by a pretty fair margin.

Re: your PK, Koivu seems prett good for the first unit, though he lacks longevity as a top PKer. Fairbairn's stats are okay but nothing special really; I'd still rather have him on a second unit, especially considering the relative lack of anecdotes about his PKing

I'm not sure what more you want as far as Fairbairn's PKing. I thought we had a pretty solid amount of quotes about his defense/PKing in his bio. Like there are multiple quotes about him and Tkaczuk being an awesome PK unit at that point (maybe best in the NHL then).

 

[seventieslord]

Adapt the rules so your team can win.

He's probably one of the better bottom six players here, especially defensively due to his okay offensive ability and very solid defensive ability.

Would you believe Fisher ended up with a negative offensive GVT in 2011 once his high minutes were taken into consideration? The Bozak effect.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tongue In Cheek

Lined that one up perfectly in your cross-sights, the mascot was no joke I see?

The meat and potatoes of the voting refer to the fact that despite I have some ideas on who the absolute best out there is, it would be incredibly premature for me to conclude that rounds of discussion will have no bearing on those opinions. If you'd like to take that a different way feel free, but I'd venture a guess nobody who has participated in one of these minor drafts with me shares that interpretation.

I'd be saying the same thing if it meant I could have all of my drafted players labeled all-stars or 0, is that really necessary of me to say?

The mascots were tongue in cheek comments about the title of the thread containing the word "assassination".

Since I made my post that you enjoyed, another post in another ATD thread, has changed my point of view. I now realize that paying attention to what the veterans post can definitely be used against them.

Keep the posts coming.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

It's a tough one. A Grosso-Breen-Bernier line definitely takes some of the playmaking pressure off Bernier.

But it becomes pretty soft without Keeling's physicality, right? Also, replacing Grosso with Keeling on the third line lowers its defense, and Vignealt definitely wants a line he can give defensive zone draws to.


Didn't think about that; you're fine if a C goes down then.

The case for Mike Grant is primarily anecdotal, not statistical - widely considered the best defenseman of the 1890s by a pretty fair margin.

Re: your PK, Koivu seems prett good for the first unit, though he lacks longevity as a top PKer. Fairbairn's stats are okay but nothing special really; I'd still rather have him on a second unit, especially considering the relative lack of anecdotes about his PKing

I don't know I still think he and Koivu are fit for the first unit. His PK record isn't bad at all and I found two more quotes about his PKing.

PK rank among forwards on his team
'72 NYR 4th
'73 NYR 1st (1% above Tkaczuk)
'74 NYR 1st (16% above Stemkowski)
'75 NYR 1st (1% above Sanderson)
'76 NYR 2nd (3% behind Tkaczuk)
'77 MIN 2nd
'78 STL 3rd
Didn't PK his first two years over 40GP ('70, '71)
Retired after 9 games in 1978-79 season

Comments from Coach Emile Francis following game 4 of 1972 Stanley Cup

Francis said the turning point in the game came in the second period just after a Chicago goal by Pat Stapleton made it 3-2 at 12:10. Bruce MacGregor of the Rangers was penalized 1.5 minutes later and Chicago had a chance to tie the game.

"That was the most important two minutes of the game," Francis said. "Walt Tkaczuk and Bill Fairbairn sure did a good job of penalty killing."

news.google.com/newspapers?id=RyJlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KYgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3076,2645118&dq=bill+fairbairn&hl=en

Tarheel, you asked about Jiri Lala. If you believe the people who voted for the Izvestia Golden Stick award for the best player in Europe (who I believe were writers from all over Europe), then Lala is the best European player in the MLD

Lala is definitely pretty impressive. Great WC career, but do you mind explaining to me a bit about the Izvestia Golden Stick? I'm aware of the Golden Stick for Czech-only players, but there's another for all of Europe?

 

[Canadiens1958]

PK Players - Forward

I'm not sure what more you want as far as Fairbairn's PKing. I thought we had a pretty solid amount of quotes about his defense/PKing in his bio. Like there are multiple quotes about him and Tkaczuk being an awesome PK unit at that point (maybe best in the NHL then).

Fairbairn and Tkaczuk were an excellent PK unit. Apart, individually they were not at the same level. True for some units as well,Ramsay/Luce. Others were excllent regardless Jarvis, Gainey, Carbonneau either paired or apart. Any blend of the Leaf PKers from the early sixties, interchangeable.

 

[vecens24]

Would you believe Fisher ended up with a negative offensive GVT in 2011 once his high minutes were taken into consideration? The Bozak effect.

Hmm....I'm fully willing to admit Fisher wasn't as good as I thought he was, but I was always fairly impressed with his ability to defend top guys with his speed.

Always fully willing to admit I'm wrong on this one though.

As far as Fisher playing in an era where offensive play matters, his 5th place Selke finish was when he finished 129th in points, and his 3rd place was when he finished 157 (for instance, he had less points than Peter Schaefer who played with him in Ottawa during that two year period). I'm not buying by ANY stretch that he got the benefit of the doubt for his offensive ability. Give me big Canadian market as an argument, give me something else, but there is no way you're convincing me that he began getting Selke recognition due to his offensive/two-way ability.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Mike Fisher

Hmm....I'm fully willing to admit Fisher wasn't as good as I thought he was, but I was always fairly impressed with his ability to defend top guys with his speed.

Always fully willing to admit I'm wrong on this one though.

As far as Fisher playing in an era where offensive play matters, his 5th place Selke finish was when he finished 129th in points, and his 3rd place was when he finished 157 (for instance, he had less points than Peter Schaefer who played with him in Ottawa during that two year period). I'm not buying by ANY stretch that he got the benefit of the doubt for his offensive ability. Give me big Canadian market as an argument, give me something else, but there is no way you're convincing me that he began getting Selke recognition due to his offensive/two-way ability.

Mike Fisher is excellent defensively especially for a RHS center. An edge he uses to advantage especially when compared to a Mats Sundin who was good defensively because he did not use being a RHS to advantage. Fisher quickly integrated Nashville after being traded from Ottawa, contributing offensively and defensively.

That said, he is not at the level of a Mike Peca, another RHS who could play in the NHL strictly based on his defensive game.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Mike Fisher is excellent defensively especially for a RHS center.

Can you elaborate on this, please? By "especially for a RHS center" are you referring to the disadvantage of being dominant on your right side while backchecking someone that is likely (~75%) left-handed...back-checking on your backhand, so to speak, meaning that when you attempt a stick lift (or what have you) on the backcheck that in order to win clear puck possession, the backchecker will likely end up having the puck travel across the body (range of motion) of the original puck carrier and thus have less of a chance of a takeaway? Where as a LHS backchecking on a LHS can use a stick-lift and turn with the puck on his forehand, cradling it away from the former puck carrier...

I'm normally with you on the points that you make in terms of scouting and coaching, but I'm a little less clear on this one (well perhaps, pending further explanation)...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Face to Face.

Can you elaborate on this, please? By "especially for a RHS center" are you referring to the disadvantage of being dominant on your right side while backchecking someone that is likely (~75%) left-handed...back-checking on your backhand, so to speak, meaning that when you attempt a stick lift (or what have you) on the backcheck that in order to win clear puck possession, the backchecker will likely end up having the puck travel across the body (range of motion) of the original puck carrier and thus have less of a chance of a takeaway? Where as a LHS backchecking on a LHS can use a stick-lift and turn with the puck on his forehand, cradling it away from the former puck carrier...

I'm normally with you on the points that you make in terms of scouting and coaching, but I'm a little less clear on this one (well perhaps, pending further explanation)...

Start with the basic face to face. LHS/LHS are not stick to stick, LHS/RHS are stick to stick or forehand to forehand.

Backchecking. A center is either on the other center's stickside or not. Behind him he is out of the play. In front see above. LHS center backchecked by a center LHS/RHS look at the stick to stick match-ups and when or where the body shields the backchecker from the puck and when the backchecker has to go across two bodies,one body and zero bodies to get to the puck.

Bolded, unless I am not visualizing it as you are, before the stick lift a full or partial half turn is required whereas with a RHS no full or partial half turn would be required.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lala is definitely pretty impressive. Great WC career, but do you mind explaining to me a bit about the Izvestia Golden Stick? I'm aware of the Golden Stick for Czech-only players, but there's another for all of Europe?

I used to be confused too. Even (wrongly) corrected Joe Pelletier once. Sometimes you will see references like "Sergei Makarov won three Golden Stick awards for the best player in Europe." That's not wrong. There are two different "Golden Stick" awards. The Golden Hockey Stick for the best player in Czechoslovakia (later changed to the best Czech (not Slovak) player in the world), has been around since the late 60s. The Izvestia Golden Stick created in the late 70s and disappeared sometime in the 90s. It went to the best player in Europe.

For example, Miroslav Dvorak finished 2nd in voting for the Czechoslovakian award in both 1981 and 1982. He finished 5th in the Europe-wide award in 1982 and out of the top 5 in 1981.

IIRC, Jiri Lala was top 5 in voting for the Europe-wide award 4 out of 5 years in the early 80s before falling off the face is the Earth.

Keep in mind that competition for the Europe-wide award includes the entire Green Unit, among others

 

[Michael Farkas]

Start with the basic face to face. LHS/LHS are not stick to stick, LHS/RHS are stick to stick or forehand to forehand.

Backchecking. A center is either on the other center's stickside or not. Behind him he is out of the play. In front see above. LHS center backchecked by a center LHS/RHS look at the stick to stick match-ups and when or where the body shields the backchecker from the puck and when the backchecker has to go across two bodies,one body and zero bodies to get to the puck.

Bolded, unless I am not visualizing it as you are, before the stick lift a full or partial half turn is required whereas with a RHS no full or partial half turn would be required.

I must be delirious ...you're correct on the bolded, I'm not sure what convoluted image I was picturing. LHS has a disadvantage of backchecking and stealing from a LHS (though may have some advantage in forcing the puck carrier to make a play on his backhand, which is something I like to tell my players: if they have a choice, backcheck on the puck carrier forehand side, make them make a tougher play). Thanks for clarifying, my apologies on the ridiculous brain lapse...

 

[Dreakmur]

I used to be confused too. Even (wrongly) corrected Joe Pelletier once. Sometimes you will see references like "Sergei Makarov won three Golden Stick awards for the best player in Europe." That's not wrong. There are two different "Golden Stick" awards. The Golden Hockey Stick for the best player in Czechoslovakia (later changed to the best Czech (not Slovak) player in the world), has been around since the late 60s. The Izvestia Golden Stick created in the late 70s and disappeared sometime in the 90s. It went to the best player in Europe.

For example, Miroslav Dvorak finished 2nd in voting for the Czechoslovakian award in both 1981 and 1982. He finished 5th in the Europe-wide award in 1982 and out of the top 5 in 1981.

IIRC, Jiri Lala was top 5 in voting for the Europe-wide award 4 out of 5 years in the early 80s before falling off the face is the Earth.

Keep in mind that competition for the Europe-wide award includes the entire Green Unit, among others

To show the competition, here it is:

1981: 462 Vladislav Tretiak (119-51-3) 453 Alexander Maltsev (115-54-0) 160 Jiri Lala (27-31-17) Sergei Makarov 151 (25-27-22) Peter Lindmark (25-24-9)

1982: 224 Vladislav Tretiak (61-11-19) 217 Milan Novy (46-31-17) 191 Viktor Shalimov (58-7-3) 175 Jiri Lala (56-2-3) 160 Miroslav Dvorak (24-27-34)

1983: 346 Vladislav Tretiak (82-43-14) 214 Vladimir Krutov (49-29-9) 195 Jiri Lala (52-18-2) 123 Sergei Makarov (26-19-7) 109 Jiri Krilak(22-14-15)

1984: 316 Vyacheslav Fetisiv (96-10-8) 182 Vladislav Tretiak (45-21-5) 163 Dominik Hasek (28-36-7) 124 Sergei Makarov (32-12-4) 86 Vladimir Krutov (23-2-13)

1985: 344 Jiri Krilak (102-17-4) 313 Sergei Makarov (89-23-0) 285 Vyacheslav Fetisov (62-17-5) 249 Jiri Lala (37-64-10) 192 Vladimir Krutov (23-51-21)


For a short span, he was viewed in the same class as Sergei Makarov!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Paper Explanations

I must be delirious ...you're correct on the bolded, I'm not sure what convoluted image I was picturing. LHS has a disadvantage of backchecking and stealing from a LHS (though may have some advantage in forcing the puck carrier to make a play on his backhand, which is something I like to tell my players: if they have a choice, backcheck on the puck carrier forehand side, make them make a tougher play). Thanks for clarifying, my apologies on the ridiculous brain lapse...

Some explanations are very hard on paper. When I was coaching especially pre teens I would first walk thru the situations then take it onto the ice.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Some explanations are very hard on paper. When I was coaching especially pre teens I would first walk thru the situations then take it onto the ice.

Same.

Ideal strategy chain of events for me:
1. Whiteboard to explain the concept roughly
2. I'd then try to concoct some video of NHLers performing the concept (both the "right way" and the "wrong way", so the difference is understandable)
3. Slow walk through
4. Let'em try it in a controlled scrimmage where I'll stop them (freeze them, ideally) and insert comments/suggestions/etc. as needed.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To show the competition, here it is:

1981: 462 Vladislav Tretiak (119-51-3) 453 Alexander Maltsev (115-54-0) 160 Jiri Lala (27-31-17) Sergei Makarov 151 (25-27-22) Peter Lindmark (25-24-9)

1982: 224 Vladislav Tretiak (61-11-19) 217 Milan Novy (46-31-17) 191 Viktor Shalimov (58-7-3) 175 Jiri Lala (56-2-3) 160 Miroslav Dvorak (24-27-34)

1983: 346 Vladislav Tretiak (82-43-14) 214 Vladimir Krutov (49-29-9) 195 Jiri Lala (52-18-2) 123 Sergei Makarov (26-19-7) 109 Jiri Krilak(22-14-15)

1984: 316 Vyacheslav Fetisiv (96-10-8) 182 Vladislav Tretiak (45-21-5) 163 Dominik Hasek (28-36-7) 124 Sergei Makarov (32-12-4) 86 Vladimir Krutov (23-2-13)

1985: 344 Jiri Krilak (102-17-4) 313 Sergei Makarov (89-23-0) 285 Vyacheslav Fetisov (62-17-5) 249 Jiri Lala (37-64-10) 192 Vladimir Krutov (23-51-21)


For a short span, he was viewed in the same class as Sergei Makarov!

Bench Brawl can thank us for doing his work for him

From a more self-interested standpoint, notice that Miroslav Dvorak was the highest ranked defenseman in Europe in 1982 for the Izvestia Golden Stick