Hey, if that's all you had to say, maybe we're not too far off!
Neither Brown nor Crowder are significant scoring threats, but Brown appears to have a very slight edge in offensive production (6 best seasons of 320 vs. 294). I would also take his defensive game over Crowder's. You are right that Brown is more of a pest than a power forward, so Crowder gets the edge there. Does that make him a better player? I don't think so, but I do see them as extremely close.
There are a few problems with saying Brown appears to have an offensive edge:
1. You're using an inferior VsX system that was a step backwards from Vs2, which is unfortunately far too dependent on the #2 scorer being compared to. I have them even in "raw" numbers based on percentages and who is "right" is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
2. Crowder missed 58 games in the seasons he had his 6 best scores. Brown missed 8. Crowder's obviously a better producer who just missed some games.
3. Brown's been playing with one of the best centers in the NHL for 6 years now, and would never lead his team or even his line in scoring; he just doesn't have that kind of upside. I went over Crowder's linemates year by year earlier in the draft and showed that he was more often than not the catalyst for his line.
I do agree that your line does have the better talent on paper, and if you were to look at them and ignore match-ups, it would be a slightly better line. Having said that, there are other factors to go into how lines will match-up. Kopirar, with the size, strength, and determination advantage over Janney is just going to control the middle of the ice. I think that factor can increase Kopitar's edge over Janney, which could make these lines very close to a wash.
I said the same thing, these lines are a wash!
as for Janney, isn't that what everyone tried to do with him? Match him up against size, strength and determination? With that considered, he still scored .98 PPG over 880 total NHL games. It's true that he has faults, but they're already accounted for in his production and accomplishments. It would not be fair to "double penalize" him for being soft. And, it's not like Kopitar would be the most intimidating player to ever try to get to him.
You can't honestly believe it is fair to look at Red Hay's numbers and give them a upward adjustment. The guy played his whole career with Bobby Hull on his wing. On the PP, he moved back to the point to play on a unit that included Hull, Stan Mikita, and Pierre Pilote. Pre- or post-expansion, a guy who played in that situation has significantly inflated offensive numbers.
Putting those two factors aside, we can all see that something goes wrong when trying to compare pre- and post-expansion players with systems like VsX. I don't have to make any upward adjustment; I think the case that he was the best pre-ex guy in this draft and Ribeiro is 7th or so for post-ex guys is a solid enough case that should generate some thought.
I realize the Hull thing, but Hull doesn't really have the reputation as a guy who inflates his linemates or makes them better... it seems they make him better, or stay out of his way, or something to that effect.
The PP thing was something I considered prior to drafting him, too. But either he wasn't feasting on points or he wasn't playing this role very often. His percentage of points scored on the PP was 26%. Looking at the 11 leading scorers in his career, that is lower than all but Ullman (22%), Richard (18%), and Bucyk (25%); it's more or less par for the course. And you do see spikes in this number with guys who played the point long term, like Fred Stanfield for example.
At ES, Hay was producing at a Wharram/Kelly/Pulford/Provost/Rousseau/Backstrom/Goyette/Henry level.
The rest of Hay's game is very well-rounded. If I said he has similar intangibles to Anze Kopitar, would that be fair? He was a big, powerful guy, but didn't intimidate. He was consistently reliable defensively.
Yes, I'd say so.
Ribeiro is one-dimensional, but that's why he landed on a second line. Is Craig Janney any better defensively or physically? I don't see it. I do, unfortunately, see the same kind of physical domination that I benefited from on the 1st lines - Hay is just going to outmuscle Ribeiro.
to answer the question, no, I see no reason to believe Janney has any more intangibles than Ribeiro.
Did you really use the argument that since Lala might get drafted higher next time, he is a better player? What makes one player actually better than the other? Lala is one of the handful or wingers who could be considered elite scorers at this level - so is Cain.
I don't know, I think you took one line out of that point and attacked it instead of the point itself. The point is pretty simple: Lala is at least this good, and most likely better. Cain is just this good.
And besides, that's not the worst thing to say. Where they get drafted next year is almost certainly a good barometer of how they're perceived based on cases made in this draft. Of course, it's still fair to ask me what right I have to attempt to predict the future...
Gilmour is a good glue guy, but his offensive game just doesn't stack up to Warwick's. Even after considering the war years, Warwick has 1st line offensive production, and that's even before taking into account hit power forward and glue guy talents. Clear edge for Warwick in my opinion.
Sigh, that's the thing about Gilmour. So easy to appreciate him when you have him, so easy to blast him when you don't. Please don't interpret that as me calling you a turncoat. Gilmour was a real acquired taste for me as well.
It's impossible to say what his offensive numbers would look like if he had a 9-year NHL career starting in 1941. And for that reason it's really easy for an opposing GM to say he probably wouldn't outscore (insert name of counterpart). And looking at his numbers, it's hard to come back with any number to counter that.
But something about him was great. There's just too much evidence of it. And it's well within the realm of possibility that the sum of his parts was better than the sum of Warwick's. Even if Warwick was clearly a better goal scorer.
It's almost impossible for a comparison involving Billy Gilmour and another MLD player to be a slam dunk or clear edge.
You did the same thing as my last opponent...
1st line comparison - my line has more talent, so it wins
3rd line comparison - your line has more talent, but mine is a checking line, so it's even
You must be busy! You read too fast. I did not say my 1st line "wins", I said they are even.
I concluded that both 1st and 3rd lines were too close to call; in each case one of us had an offensive advantage and one a defensive advantage; neither appeared to be too great to overcome the other.
I've seen too much of the old "my line is better offensively so it's better, and over here my line is better defensively so it's better" so I took great care to avoid that.
As long-term minute munchers, Aucoin barely qualifies. He has 3 seasons as a #1 defenseman. Outside of those 3 years as an Islander, he was rarely even a top pairing guy, let alone a #1.
Zhitnik, on the other had, was his team's #1 defenseman at least 9 years in a row. No official ice time stats were calculated before 1998, but based on goals for and against statistics, Zhitnik was very likely his team's #1 in 1997 and 1996.
This definitely is not a wash - not even close in my opinion.
This is what I get for being charitable??
Come on, you have to see that Zhitnik was a "default #1" far too often. Who was the best player he had to compete with for minutes? Probably Robert Smehlik, who's worthy of selection in about, oh, 500 more picks.
Even Barry Gibbs, the supposed poster child for "default #1" (even though he got all-star recognition and anchored high performing defense corps) had much better competition for his #1 status: Boivin, Harris, Mohns, Bergman, Manery, Quinn, Kea & Seiling at various points in his and their careers.
Aucoin, of course, was playing ahead of Kenny Jonsson and Roman Hamrlik for those three Islanders seasons, and it wasn't by a small margin, either. He was their MVP. He's had seasons as a #2 behind Phaneuf, and Yandle in his "almost all-star" season. He's also been a #3 just behind Ohlund and McCabe (ATD players) and Ohlund/Jovanovski (ATD players) and Phaneuf/Regehr (ATD players). Although Michalek isn't an all-time presence yet, Aucoin at 36 played a minute more per game than 33 year old Jovanovski in 2010 as well.
Aucoin would have been a #1 on Buffalo from 1996-2004 too, wouldn't he?
Zhitnik deserves credit for being that relied on by teams that were also usually pretty good, but not nearly as much credit as you'd usually give, because an MVP-caliber, generational talent goaltender was the one actually carrying the team.
Every year, Buffalo gets into the playoffs with a ragtag team and a ragtag defense led by Zhitnik, yet, no one ever throws him an all-star vote. You'd think he'd get more credit.
Unless Ellett's defensive game is among the very best in this draft, I don't see how it washes away Kaberle's offensive edge. As shown before, Kaberle is by far the best offensive producer among blueliners here.
That's a bit of a logical fallacy, suggesting that Ellett has to be the best defensively to make up for Kaberle being the best offensively. He only has to be as much better defensively as Kaberle is offensively - which isn't an obscene amount. And yeah, he's in that ballpark.
No, Ellett is not a physical/defensive beast, but he was quite a bit better in those areas than Kaberle. And since defending is their primary job...
TDMM said he had a reputation as a below average defensive player. I'm not really seeing it:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=69750967&postcount=111
As for coaching, I do agree that you definitely have a better coach on paper. I don't think Gerard is the borderline ATD coach that you seem to think he is, but he's definitely better than King (on paper). The thing with coaching is that is has a lot to do with chemistry. How does a coach fit his team. We specifically picked King because he fit out team so well. I'm not sure Gerard is best suited for the kind of players to you have.
The biggest question I see is Drozdetsky. He is one of the most talented players in the draft, but he is also a very lazy and selfish one. How is he going to fit into a system? How is he going to fit into a line that has Craig Janney running the offense?
I believe Gerard is a defense-first system coach (though I could be wrong), and if he is, how well do guys like Craig Janney and Jiri Lala fit in?
I see him as that kind of guy, too. However, coaches like that throughout history have always gotten by with a few players who aren't their classic "type" because they've all realized you still need to have a couple freewheelers who will score for you. Certainly if you have a whole bunch of guys who aren't going to buy in, you're in trouble. But I have three who can be singled out - Janney, Droz and Lala, and Lala is only because he's an unknown. The rest of these guys are as solid citizens as you're going to find (Khristich is on and off but when he's on he has all the tools). This lineup is not even close to "poor fit" territory because of just three players.
