2018 Assassination Thread

[Dreakmur]

See this is why I asked what your definition of "great" was. If we look at vs.X (which is a better metric to compare offensive ability across eras than point finishes), Barry is your best offensive player, and he has the 40th highest score in the draft. Savard is 63rd, Heatley 93rd, and Goulet is outside the top 100. Disclaimer, vs.X does not take playoffs into account and overly punishes players who miss games. But just to illustrate my point, using that metric, you're saying there's over 100 "great" scorers in the draft. Which is fine if that's how you want to define it, but I don't think it tells us much.

That ignores Russians and pre-NHL guys, so you can slide all those guys down the list a little bit.

 

[jarek]

That ignores Russians and pre-NHL guys, so you can slide all those guys down the list a little bit.

But not Czechs or Swedes? Are you countryist!?

I knew you were harboring some dark secrets...

 

[Sturminator]

Re. Dillon: There are only a few quotes in the bio talking about his PK'ing, and the degree of his effectiveness is described vaguely at best.

The articles those quotes came from are from 1931, 1933, 1935 and 1936. The best of the bunch are the following:

I think there's enough here for him to be seen as a passable 2nd unit guy but he might be the worst 1st unit PK'er in the draft without looking.

There are only a few quotes for anybody from this era regarding penalty-killing. Cecil Dillon was regarded as one of the finest checking forwards of his era, and there is enough information to show that he was a regular top-unit PKer for those Rangers teams. He scored six short-handed goals in the 1934-35 season (in 48 games), which was almost certainly a record at the time, and to the best of my knowledge a record that stood for 36 years until Dave Keon broke it in 1970-71, feeding off of post-expansion trash in a much longer season.

You're off your meds if you think Cecil Dillon is not an excellent 1st unit PKer here.

 

[ImporterExporter]

There are only a few quotes for anybody from this era regarding penalty-killing. Cecil Dillon was regarded as one of the finest checking forwards of his era, and there is enough information to show that he was a regular top-unit PKer for those Rangers teams. He scored six short-handed goals in the 1934-35 season (in 48 games), which was almost certainly a record at the time, and to the best of my knowledge a record that stood for 36 years until Dave Keon broke it in 1970-71, feeding off of post-expansion trash in a much longer season.

You're off your meds if you think Cecil Dillon is not an excellent 1st unit PKer here.

How about you let RB fight his own battles please. You hooked your cart up to his horse fairly early on and it was noticed by more than one GM, believe me. It's fine if you have a favorite but where I think lines are being crossed is when you (or anyone) start specifically singling out a GM and arguing on his behalf....almost entirely in a positive light i might add.

It's also a load of crap that players from the 30's and 40's don't have more than a vague passing reference to their penalty killing abilities. Anyone with a bit of time and inkling can see as much in the master bio thread.

 

[ResilientBeast]

How about you let RB fight his own battles please. You hooked your cart up to his horse fairly early on and it was noticed by more than one GM, believe me. It's fine if you have a favorite but where I think lines are being crossed is when you (or anyone) start specifically singling out a GM and arguing on his behalf....almost entirely in a positive light i might add.

It's also a load of crap that players from the 30's and 40's don't have more than a vague passing reference to their penalty killing abilities. Anyone with a bit of time and inkling can see as much in the master bio thread.

With the implication being that I haven't been?

Sturminator has been an invaluable source as I put together my team and I'm sure for many others.

And history shows he'll come to anyone's defence when someone is using a bad argument.

 

[ImporterExporter]

With the implication being that I haven't been?

Sturminator has been an invaluable source as I put together my team and I'm sure for many others.

And history shows he'll come to anyone's defence when someone is using a bad argument.

I didn't say that. Don't invent a false narrative. You do just fine arguing points.

What has been extremely clear throughout the draft, again, I am not alone in this observation, was that he was extremely quick to jump to your teams aid repeatedly. It shows bias, whether intended or not.

Also, there is a definitive difference between a "bad" argument and a difference in opinion. The Lehman debates showed the assertion above in a bright light. I'm guessing he had a large hand in helping you shape your roster (you said as much) and is, in a way, GM'ing vicariously through your team by repeatedly arguing on your behalf.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I didn't say that. Don't invent a false narrative. You do just fine arguing points.

What has been extremely clear throughout the draft, again, I am not alone in this observation, was that he was extremely quick to jump to your teams aid repeatedly. It shows bias, whether intended or not.

Also, there is a definitive difference between a "bad" argument and a difference in opinion. The Lehman debates showed the assertion above in a bright light. I'm guessing he had a large hand in helping you shape your roster (you said as much) and is, in a way, GM'ing vicariously through your team by repeatedly arguing on your behalf.

Bad argument regarding my top PK unit. Not referring to my goaltending

Nice leap logic, did I ask for help yes you'd be stupid not ask someone who knows what they're doing for help if you were unsure. Let's not take anymore credit away from me for the team I've assembled.

 

[Sturminator]

How about you let RB fight his own battles please. You hooked your cart up to his horse fairly early on and it was noticed by more than one GM, believe me. It's fine if you have a favorite but where I think lines are being crossed is when you (or anyone) start specifically singling out a GM and arguing on his behalf....almost entirely in a positive light i might add.

Eh? If this is about Hugh Lehman, that's an opinion I've held for a long time. Allow me to quote 2012 me.

As I've said before, I consider Lehman essentially equal to Tony Esposito. Both were terrific goalies, but had certain weaknesses (including perhaps a lack of focus...which may in some ways explain the regular season/postseason disparity) which were exposed when the chips were down. But they're good enough goalies that you can win even if they weren't perfect in the playoffs.

That opinion hasn't changed. I was also the person who uncovered the evidence of Mickey MacKay's playoff struggles in the 20s, and it's not a large leap to see how that has affected how we view Lehman. If I play favorites, it is with players in the draft, not GMs. If I've argued more for any one franchise this year, it is probably overpass' team, which I really like. How about you mind your own business and worry about your own team?

It's also a load of crap that players from the 30's and 40's don't have more than a vague passing reference to their penalty killing abilities. Anyone with a bit of time and inkling can see as much in the master bio thread.

Really? So, who were the best penalty-killers of the 1930's?

The best quotes you're going to find from that era are general quotes about defensive ability, and quotes which establish that a guy was a regular penalty-killer for his team, both of which are present for Cecil Dillon. If he's not one of the best PK forwards of his era, who is?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Cecil Dillon the PKer

The Globe, 05 Apr 1933

"Keeling was penalized for spilling Bately near the net and while he was off the weary Leafs met stubborn and bruising resistance from the short handed New Yorkers. Dillon was as good as two men and his speed and checking prevented Toronto from organizing an effective, although the Leafs had the puck around the New York net three of four times..."

Just evidence he was on the PK

The Globe, 26 Jan 1934

Brebab returned itand Dutkowski was chased for dumping Howe on the next play. Kaminsky bounced one off Aitkenhead's pads as the Senators swarmed in with the odd man. Dillon cleared it up the ice..."

The Globe, 10 Feb 1937

"New York increased their lead to three when Dillon broke away from a Toronto powerplay, to whip a backhander into the short side of the net past Broda"

The Globe, 03 Apr 1933

"With six minutes of the first sesion yet to go, Somers charge George Hay (a Red wing at the time) and drew a penlaty. It gave the Rangers their second goal.

Four Wing forwards again came out, and they were caught flat in Ranger's territory. Dillon grabbed a loose puck near the Detroit blue line and raced in alone on Roach...."

The Border Cities Star;Rangers Slip Into Third Place as Falcons Lose 5-4 (02/06/1931) said:

In addition to these scoring feats, Dillon played a great defensive game and his clever checking helped the Blue Shirts on many occasion when penalties left them a man short

The Lewiston Daily Sun; New York Wins handily Score 5-1; Big Crowd (04/05/1933) said:

Tall, black-haired young Cecil Dillon, again was the spear-head of the Ranger attack [...] Dillon scored two goals, his sixth and seventh of the play-offs, assisted Murdoch in another and fairly ran the Leafs ragged with his back-checking when penalties left his team shorthanded.

Dillon's individual skill brought the fourth goal and showed the Leafs how badly beaten they were. [...] Ching Johnson finally got the puck and drove it far down the ice where Dillon and Happy Day racing for it. Day got there first, but as he circled the net and circled down the ice again, Dillon caught up with him and hooked the puck nearly off his stick. The young Ranger feinted three times before the veteran Chabot finally plunged out of the goal mouth, then he swung neatly past the cage guardin and poked the disc home.
​

Calgary Daily Herald: 10-28-1936 said: (Found this quote in the Globe as well)

Our outstanding back-checking line, judging from their work here, probably will be the "kid line." But when we are playing short-handed, Murray Murdoch and Dillon will be used as back-checkers.​

Meriden Record: 11-2-1936 said:​

As usual, Murdoch and Dillon, both superb defensive players, will carry the burden when penalties leave the team short-handed.​

​

 

[Sturminator]

What has been extremely clear throughout the draft, again, I am not alone in this observation, was that he was extremely quick to jump to your teams aid repeatedly. It shows bias, whether intended or not.

Heh...many GMs ask me for advice, including you, and I always give it to the best of my ability, irrespective of who I am talking to.

Some GMs have players/units that I like, and/or follow draft strategies that I think are sound. Maybe my advice isn't bad? Maybe I'm good at picking winners? I dunno. You act like I'm Petyr Baelish, so something.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Bad argument regarding my top PK unit. Not referring to my goaltending

Nice leap logic, did I ask for help yes you'd be stupid not ask someone who knows what they're doing for help if you were unsure. Let's not take anymore credit away from me for the team I've assembled.

Nobody is taking credit away from you. Don't get defensive. I even asked Sturm a question or 2 during the draft. But nobody else has benefited from continued lengthy defensive posturing from a non GM when it comes to debates both during and post draft.

I also referenced your top PK FORWARDS.....Sanderson is good to great in a 24 team draft, he's certainly not elite. Is he on the same level as Ed Westfall or Craig Ramsay? No. You can go by overpasses's study or historical reference and reach that conclusion. In real life he was elite for his time, but on the all time scale, he's a notch below.....IMHO. Dillon was a plus defensive player, but there is nothing on him killing penalties. I think we produced 1 vague reference? Maybe somebody can produce something of significance, even if it's 1-2 blurbs. Considering all the stuff I dug up on Nels Stewart playing strong defense, I'm going to bet it won't change the perception he's a major liability in that regard, so why should we just ASSUME Dillon was an elite PK'er and treat it as gospel?

 

[ImporterExporter]

The Globe, 05 Apr 1933

"Keeling was penalized for spilling Bately near the net and while he was off the weary Leafs met stubborn and bruising resistance from the short handed New Yorkers. Dillon was as good as two men and his speed and checking prevented Toronto from organizing an effective, although the Leafs had the puck around the New York net three of four times..."

Just evidence he was on the PK

The Globe, 26 Jan 1934

Brebab returned itand Dutkowski was chased for dumping Howe on the next play. Kaminsky bounced one off Aitkenhead's pads as the Senators swarmed in with the odd man. Dillon cleared it up the ice..."

The Globe, 10 Feb 1937

"New York increased their lead to three when Dillon broke away from a Toronto powerplay, to whip a backhander into the short side of the net past Broda"

OK, there you go! At least you found something

 

[ResilientBeast]

Nobody is taking credit away from you. Don't get defensive. I even asked Sturm a question or 2 during the draft. But nobody else has benefited from continued lengthy defensive posturing from a non GM when it comes to debates both during and post draft.

I also referenced your top PK FORWARDS.....Sanderson is good to great in a 24 team draft, he's certainly not elite. Is he on the same level as Ed Westfall or Craig Ramsay? No. You can go by overpasses's study or historical reference and reach that conclusion. In real life he was elite for his time, but on the all time scale, he's a notch below.....IMHO. Dillon was a plus defensive player, but there is nothing on him killing penalties. I think we produced 1 vague reference? Maybe somebody can produce something of significance, even if it's 1-2 blurbs. Considering all the stuff I dug up on Nels Stewart playing strong defense, I'm going to bet it won't change the perception he's a major liability in that regard, so why should we just ASSUME Dillon was an elite PK'er and treat it as gospel?

Please see the post above mine for the dump of quotes.

Dillon pk'd and it seems like he did it quite well.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Heh...many GMs ask me for advice, including you, and I always give it to the best of my ability, irrespective of who I am talking to.

Some GMs have players/units that I like, and/or follow draft strategies that I think are sound. Maybe my advice isn't bad? Maybe I'm good at picking winners? I dunno. You act like I'm Petyr Baelish, so something.

His downfall was teaching somebody his trade craft all too well I'd be careful Sturm!

 

[ImporterExporter]

Please see the post above mine for the dump of quotes.

Dillon pk'd and it seems like he did it quite well.

Fair enough. I think you're PK units overall are very strong, as you mentioned, because of the D pairings. I'm certainly going to give your F's a bit more credit since this discussion began. Sometimes the dialogue just needs to be fleshed out.

 

[Sturminator]

His downfall was teaching somebody his trade craft all too well I'd be careful Sturm!

Maybe you (and jarek) should have just read Dillon's bio before jumping in to criticize him as a penalty-killer? The profile is linked right there in the roster post. I tend to be pretty harsh towards patently false arguments when the information needed to correct misconceptions is readily available.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Maybe you (and jarek) should have just read Dillon's bio before jumping in to criticize him as a penalty-killer? The profile is linked right there in the roster post. I tend to be pretty harsh towards patently false arguments when the information needed to correct misconceptions is readily available.

In their defence the bio just gives blanket statements saying he'd be called upon to back check when shorthanded.

A few posts above I have in game quotes of him pk'ing.

- He did pk
- Allegedly was on Lester Patricks go to line
- Had the skillset to be a great PKer
- Scored a lot while shorthanded

 

[ImporterExporter]

So where would Dillon rank for you guys all time as a PK'er? Roughly speaking? If we put the Ramsay's, Westfall's, Carbonneau's of the hockey world as elite in that role, where does Dillon slide in?

 

[Sturminator]

So where would Dillon rank for you guys all time as a PK'er? Roughly speaking? If we put the Ramsay's, Westfall's, Carbonneau's of the hockey world as elite in that role, where does Dillon slide in?

Dillon is a somewhat unique player in this respect, a strong offensive winger who played most of his prime on a checkingline with little offensive help, who was also one of the best defensive forwards of his era, and almost certainly the most dangerous short-handed scorer of his era.

Overall, given what we know about his overall defensive abilities, the fact that he was a 1st unit PKer on a strong team for it looks like a long time, and his short-handed scoring exploits...I'd put him as the best PK wing of his era, and maybe the best forward, although guys like Pit Lepine are also in that conversation.

I've got Dillon as one of the top 15 or so PK forwards of all time, and in the top 5 wings. Outside of maybe Ed Westfall, there's not a PK wing in history who I think is clearly better. He's up there with Provost and Ramsay, imo.

 

[jarek]

Maybe you (and jarek) should have just read Dillon's bio before jumping in to criticize him as a penalty-killer? The profile is linked right there in the roster post. I tend to be pretty harsh towards patently false arguments when the information needed to correct misconceptions is readily available.

I never made any accusations. I simply asked for some evidence. When RB mentioned that it is already in the bio, I went and looked and found what I was looking for.

Maybe Dillon is a better PK'er than I give him credit for. I honestly never gave the idea much thought. Is he a legit 1st unit PK here? It's possible.

I just think there are a lot of players out there who have *at least* as much to support their PK proficiency as Dillon.

Dillon is a somewhat unique player in this respect, a strong offensive winger who played most of his prime on a checkingline with little offensive help, who was also one of the best defensive forwards of his era, and almost certainly the most dangerous short-handed scorer of his era.

Overall, given what we know about his overall defensive abilities, the fact that he was a 1st unit PKer on a strong team for it looks like a long time, and his short-handed scoring exploits...I'd put him as the best PK wing of his era, and maybe the best forward, although guys like Pit Lepine are also in that conversation.

I've got Dillon as one of the top 15 or so PK forwards of all time, and in the top 5 wings. Outside of maybe Ed Westfall, there's not a PK wing in history who I think is clearly better. He's up there with Provost and Ramsay, imo.

Toppazzini, Marshall and Nevin would all be competing for top-5 wing spots, and I think all 3 of them are better than Dillon. There is simply more to support their PK'ing proficiency.

 

[jarek]

I'm just going to come out and say that I think it's impossible to rank PK'ers 1 to whatever, and it is more appropriate to rank them in tiers. Can we really conclusively say that one era's PK'ers were better than any other's? They all had the same job - stop their respective era's top offensive players from scoring on the PP. Who are we to say any one specific group was better than any other?

Dillon, Toppazzini, Nevin, Marshall, Westfall, Ramsay, Gainey, Ward, etc. would all likely occupy that first tier. Ace Bailey might even make it there. Maybe you give an edge to the Westfalls, Ramsays, etc. because they are more known commodities, but I'm not even sure that's really fair. Then you need to go further back and start talking about the Crawfords, Phillips, Westwicks, etc., and I'm probably missing a lot of obvious ones. And how about the international greats? Makarov, Krutov and Martinec would all likely end up in that top tier, or at the very worst, in the next tier below.

It would be really interesting to do a top PK'ers project. In fact I think I'd like to do that if enough people are interested.

 

[rmartin65]

Coach: Toe Blake

Patrik Elias (A) --- Cyclone Taylor --- Charlie Conacher
Sweeney Schriner --- Norm Ullman --- Cecil Dillon
Ed Sandford --- Cooney Weiland --- Corey Perry
Tony Leswick--- Derek Sanderson --- Ron Stewart

Ivan Johnson --- Doug Harvey (A)
Ebbie Goodfellow (C) --- Cy Wentworth
Bobby Rowe --- Art Duncan (A)

Hugh Lehman
Hap Holmes

Extra: Jack Adams (LW), Art Chapman (C), Bruce MacGregor (RW/C), Viktor Kuzkin (D)

PP1: Schriner - Ullman - Conacher - Taylor - Harvey
PP2: Elias - Weiland - Perry - Goodfellow - Duncan
PK1: Sanderson- Dillon - Johnson - Harvey
PK2: Leswick - Stewart - Goodfellow - Wentworth
PK3: Weiland - Elias​

I have to say, I hate that you are always in my division. You consistently put up strong teams, and this year is no different.

Coaching and Leadership
Not much needs to be said here; Blake is awesome (consensus top-3 coach), and you have a strong on-ice presence in Goodfellow and Harvey. I guess Elias may be a little weak, but that's really picking nits.

1st Line
One of the better 1st lines out there. Taylor and Conacher would be a fun duo to watch, and I think Elias fits them nicely. I wonder about the lines physicality a bit (Conacher's physicality was more in his fists than his playing style, correct?) as well as boardwork and net-front presence, but everything else is there in spades.

2nd Line
Man, that Ullman-Dillon connection is sweet. Underrated offensively, and strong offensively. Add in Schriner as an offensive guy, and this line is dangerous, and, as much as I hate to admit it, probably better than several 1st lines in this draft. This line might be my favorite part of your team.

3rd Line
On the other hand, I think your 3rd line is on the weak side. Perry is a fine 3rd liner at this point, and he meshes with Weiland pretty well, but Sandford is a definite weakspot- I honestly think he would be just an average to below-average 4th liner.

4th Line
Seems pretty solid.

1st Pairing
Very strong pairing, even if I am not wild about Johnson. Harvey is the 3rd best D for my money (I do think Bourque is better, though it's close), and should cover for most of Johnson's clumsy skating and offensive deficiencies. Johnson, for his part, brings the lumber as well as just about anybody.

2nd Pairing
Goodfellow is a strong 3, and I think Wentworth is a decent 4 here. They seem like a good fit stylistically, and like your first pairing, wont be fun for opposing forwards to go up against.

3rd Pairing
Honestly, I don't have much to say. I see Rowe was left-handed, but his bio mentions he played RW in addition to D. Wouldn't it stand to reason that he played RD? Not that it matters much, but something that struck my mind.

Goalies
Weak, but it has been talked to death, so I wont belabor the point. You got bailed out a bit by a rookie GM taking an inferior goalie (to Lehman) as his backup before you took Lehman.

Spares
MacGregor was a good add. I almost picked him for my 4RW several rounds earlier than you got him.

Special Teams
I think your PP units are fairly average as a whole, but your PK units are pretty strong.

3 things I like
1) 2nd Line
2) 1st Pairing
3) PK Units

3 things I don’t like
1) 3rd line
2) Goaltending
3) Rather pedestrian 2nd PP unit

 

[kruezer]

I'm just going to come out and say that I think it's impossible to rank PK'ers 1 to whatever, and it is more appropriate to rank them in tiers. Can we really conclusively say that one era's PK'ers were better than any other's? They all had the same job - stop their respective era's top offensive players from scoring on the PP. Who are we to say any one specific group was better than any other?

Dillon, Toppazzini, Nevin, Marshall, Westfall, Ramsay, Gainey, Ward, etc. would all likely occupy that first tier. Ace Bailey might even make it there. Maybe you give an edge to the Westfalls, Ramsays, etc. because they are more known commodities, but I'm not even sure that's really fair. Then you need to go further back and start talking about the Crawfords, Phillips, Westwicks, etc., and I'm probably missing a lot of obvious ones. And how about the international greats? Makarov, Krutov and Martinec would all likely end up in that top tier, or at the very worst, in the next tier below.

It would be really interesting to do a top PK'ers project. In fact I think I'd like to do that if enough people are interested.

I’d definitely be interested in a top PKers project. Would be real interesting to differentiate defensive play and PK play, obviously they correlate a lot but fleshing out the info for players could really help nuance our rankings of a lot of guys. I’d even be interested in a sub ranking of best offensive PKers or something like that to get a little extra nuance.

 

[Sturminator]

Ottawa Senators​

Coach: Glen Sather
Assistant Coach: Frank Boucher
Captain: Scott Stevens
Alternates: Gordie Howe, Henri Richard

Forwards
Joe Malone - Darryl Sittler - Gordie Howe (A)
Paul Thompson - Henri Richard (A) - Theo Fleury
Brad Marchand - Neil Colville - Alexander Mogilny
Rusty Crawford - Dave Poulin - Rene Robert
John Tavares, Jack Darragh

Defence
Scott Stevens (C) - Larry Murphy
Babe Pratt - Art Coulter
Glen Harmon - Alex Pietrangelo
Hamby Shore

Goaltender
Vladislav Tretiak
Curtis Joseph

Powerplay

Darryl Sittler - Joe Malone - Alexander Mogilny
Babe Pratt - Gordie Howe

Paul Thompson - Henri Richard - Theo Fleury
Larry Murphy - Rene Robert

Penalty Kill

Rusty Crawford - Dave Poulin - Gordie Howe
Scott Stevens

Brad Marchand - Neil Colville - Theo Fleury
Art Coulter

Estimated Ice Time

Name​	Pos	ES	PP	PK	TOT
Malone	LW	15	4	0	19
Sittler	C	12	4	0	16
Howe	RW	15	5	4	24
Thompson	LW	13	3	0	16
Richard	C	16	2	1	19
Fleury	RW	13	3	2	18
Marchand	LW	11	0	3	14
Colville	C	11	1	3	15
Mogilny	RW	11	3	0	14
Crawford	LW	7	0	4	11
Poulin	C	7	0	4	11
Robert	RW	7	3	0	10
Total		138	28	21	187

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Name​		ES	PP	PK	TOT
Stevens	LD	19	0	4	23
Murphy	RD	18	3	0	21
Pratt	LD	15	4	0	19
Coulter	RD	16	0	3	19
Harmon	LD	12	0	0	12
Pietrangelo	RD	12	0	0	12
Total		92	7	7	106

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So, I'll start off by saying that I really like this team. You've got a lot of offensive firepower, a strong goalie who is used to playing behind fairly wide-open offensive teams, and good roster-coach synergy. Should be one of the real contenders to win it all.

1st line: I thought waiting on Sittler like you did was brilliant. With Howe leading the way, you could afford to wait at that position, and I think you waited just long enough, and got excellent value. Wouldn't want a guy lower than Sittler as a 1st liner, but he's fine there. Tons of offensive firepower, plenty of grit, and enough defense to hold up (though I think Malone's defensive value is limited on the wing). Should be a lethal unit.

2nd line: Another quite strong unit, following a theme of scoring prowess all over the lineup. You've got a sort of puckwinning-by-committee setup here which I think will work with none of the three being dominant physically, but each being able to contribute. Richard's excellent two-way ability is enough for the line to be defensively cohesive, and offensively, they are excellent, with Richard among the best ES centers in history, and good wingers. Another excellent line.

3rd line: A little less enamored with this unit. Colville basically has Richard's role as the defensive conscience of the unit, and that's fine...I'm just not in love with Mogilny at even strength. Very talented, but his offensive contributions were so uneven. Enough grit between Marchand and Colville. Nothing terribly wrong with the unit...I'm just not much a fan of AlMo.

4th line: Mainly a special teams unit, and good in that role. Don't see them giving you much at even strength (Robert brings down an otherwise promising unit), but that's not terribly important.

1st pairing: I think Stevens is a below-average #1D at 24 teams, and in spite of past draft position, Larry Murphy is at the bottom-end of legit #2s, in my opinion (I've got him in the 49-52 range all-time). It's a good fit in terms of style, but not a great unit in terms of talent.

2nd pairing: Art Coulter is an excellent #3, imo. I've got him in the same tier as Larry Murphy. Pratt on a 2nd pairing (and where you drafted him) is probably my least favorite part of your team. I think he's an elite #5 or a low-end #4 at 24 teams (I have him as around the 100th best D of all-time) He's a guy whose best seasons came during the war years, and I don't think he was particularly sound defensively. Obviously, he's paired with a strong defensive #3 here, so that helps, but I think you could have done better, and he brings the unit down somewhat. Overall, a slightly above-average pairing, mainly because of Coulter.

3rd pairing: You surprised me with Pietrangelo, but I like the pick. I think both he and Harmon are solid #5s at 24 teams, and overall make for a strong third pairing, which is increasingly important as scoring third lines have become the norm in the draft.

Goaltending: Tretiak is a good goalie in a draft of this size, and a guy who did well dealing with a lot of shots, which I expect he will face behind a somewhat below-average defense (mainly due to the 1st pairing).

Coaching: Strong coach-roster synergy here. Sather is in the discussion for being in the top-10 coaches of all-time, and you've given him the keys to a team that should execute his tactics very well.

Power play: Not sure how I feel about Gordie Howe at the point, and Pratt is only ok as a second pointman on a 1st unit at this level. Obviously, Howe is amazing, but I just don't know that this is the best use of his talents. The forwards are ok. Malone is very good, but the other two look fairly mediocre as 1st unit guys. Malone has more grit than he is generally given credit for and Sittler was a scrapper, so they should be fine cycling the puck along the boards, but the talent is kinda meh. Second unit is pretty good, with good players at every position. Not in love with using Henri Richard on a PP, but I understand that he is too good not to use in that capacity, and I think he'll be fine in that role, though it does take away from his ES production somewhat (I gather Toe Blake liked to send Richard's line out after penalties to either team).

Penalty kill: Not sure how I feel about the three forwards look. I understand that Frank Boucher had a lot of success with this as a coach, but I'm not certain that this would translate well to the modern game. Outside of Crawford, the personnel are quite strong, and Tretiak is good, but I don't know enough about Crawford to judge him as a penalty-killer. I gather that Crawford was a good back-checker, but he spent almost the entirety of his career before there even were powerplays in the eastern leagues. Seems like a potential weakness. Second unit looks allright. Is Marchand really that great of a PKer? I honestly don't know, but I bet you do. The rest of the skaters are good, and Fleury is underrated as a penalty-killer, imo.

Overall, an excellent team, and one that has a real chance at the Cup. How well the defense and penalty kill units hold up will likely determine how far you advance.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I have to say, I hate that you are always in my division. You consistently put up strong teams, and this year is no different.

Coaching and Leadership
Not much needs to be said here; Blake is awesome (consensus top-3 coach), and you have a strong on-ice presence in Goodfellow and Harvey. I guess Elias may be a little weak, but that's really picking nits.

1st Line
One of the better 1st lines out there. Taylor and Conacher would be a fun duo to watch, and I think Elias fits them nicely. I wonder about the lines physicality a bit (Conacher's physicality was more in his fists than his playing style, correct?) as well as boardwork and net-front presence, but everything else is there in spades.

2nd Line
Man, that Ullman-Dillon connection is sweet. Underrated offensively, and strong offensively. Add in Schriner as an offensive guy, and this line is dangerous, and, as much as I hate to admit it, probably better than several 1st lines in this draft. This line might be my favorite part of your team.

3rd Line
On the other hand, I think your 3rd line is on the weak side. Perry is a fine 3rd liner at this point, and he meshes with Weiland pretty well, but Sandford is a definite weakspot- I honestly think he would be just an average to below-average 4th liner.

4th Line
Seems pretty solid.

1st Pairing
Very strong pairing, even if I am not wild about Johnson. Harvey is the 3rd best D for my money (I do think Bourque is better, though it's close), and should cover for most of Johnson's clumsy skating and offensive deficiencies. Johnson, for his part, brings the lumber as well as just about anybody.

2nd Pairing
Goodfellow is a strong 3, and I think Wentworth is a decent 4 here. They seem like a good fit stylistically, and like your first pairing, wont be fun for opposing forwards to go up against.

3rd Pairing
Honestly, I don't have much to say. I see Rowe was left-handed, but his bio mentions he played RW in addition to D. Wouldn't it stand to reason that he played RD? Not that it matters much, but something that struck my mind.

Goalies
Weak, but it has been talked to death, so I wont belabor the point. You got bailed out a bit by a rookie GM taking an inferior goalie (to Lehman) as his backup before you took Lehman.

Spares
MacGregor was a good add. I almost picked him for my 4RW several rounds earlier than you got him.

Special Teams
I think your PP units are fairly average as a whole, but your PK units are pretty strong.

3 things I like
1) 2nd Line
2) 1st Pairing
3) PK Units

3 things I don’t like
1) 3rd line
2) Goaltending
3) Rather pedestrian 2nd PP unit

Pretty fair review, I have a for comments for later and I'll make sure to take a stab at your fine team