2018 Assassination Thread

[overpass]

View attachment 94539

Coach: Lester Patrick

Aurèle Joliat - Howie Morenz (A) - Helmuts Balderis
Doug Bentley - Max Bentley - Dave Taylor (A)
Zach Parise - Duke Keats - Jimmy Ward
Marty Pavelich - Steve Kasper - Don Marcotte
Dave Trottier, Billy Burch

Jack Stewart - King Clancy (C)
Art Ross - Tom Johnson
Ted Harris - Jiří Bubla
Marc-Edouard Vlasic

Jiří Holeček
Percy LeSueur

Powerplay:

Keats
Morenz - Joliat
Clancy - M. Bentley

Taylor
Balderis - D. Bentley
Bubla - Ross

Penalty Kill

Marcotte - Pavelich
Stewart - Johnson

Kasper - Ward
Harris - Clancy​

Coaching/leadership: Lester Patrick was a great coach and one of the stronger coaches at this level. King Clancy as captain seemed fine to me at first given his personality, playing style, and reputation...but after looking him up, he was only a captain in the NHL for three seasons. Your team could probably use a steadying influence to balance out the excitable Clancy, who by all accounts never stopped talking in his life except to eat or sleep.

First line: Ah, the old Joliat-Morenz combination reunited. Can't go wrong with that. You could go a few directions with the third player for the line and you went with high-end skill and offence from Balderis. Balderis is a bit on the low-end for a first liner though.

Second line: I'll say it -- I'm not a big fan of reuniting the Bentley brothers at even strength. They didn't win anything while playing together, didn't even come close, and they could be pushed around by bigger forward lines. But if you're going to do it, having them on a second line to shelter them from top pairings is a very good way to do it, and Dave Taylor adds some muscle to the line (although not as much skill as you'd like for a second line).

Third line: Looks like a two-way line with Parise and Ward as solid two-way wings at this level. What does Keats bring as a two-way or defensive centre? Offensively, you have the slower Keats dishing the puck to the speedy wingers. I've always been a little down on Keats because of his rep as a slow skater...but that's probably not really fair as there have been centres in all eras that were successful without being fast. Ryan Getzlaf might be a good comparison.

Fourth line: Definitely a checking line, with three checking specialists. It's almost too much of a checking line for my tastes...I wonder who will take the lead offensively. But you've got a checker ready to match up with star forwards at any position. Good strategic pick getting Pavelich with Gordie Howe in the division. I've never been a big Steve Kasper fan, but looking him up he had better offensive stats than I thought.

Top pairing: Strong. An average #1 and an above-average #2. Good fit, with Stewart's muscle and Clancy's speed.

Second pairing: Looks good. Johnson is a strong #3. Art Ross is a bit of a cipher but should be fine as a #4. Johnson is obviously the defensive conscience here and Ross the rusher, and I like that you have your defensive guy on different sides on the top two pairings, so you can match up against different lines.

Third pairing: Don't really know much about Bubla but if everyone else thinks he is good there, fine with me. I think Harris might be just a bit short on talent to be a regular at this level. Your top 4 are very solid but I'm not such a fan of this pairing.

Goaltending: Fine. No particular opinions on either player.

Power play: Personnel look fine so I'll ignore the formation. You have one of the great pointmen in Max Bentley, and lots of skill and chemistry with Morenz-Joliat. I think Keats is a little underwhelming on a first unit. Doug Bentley is overqualified for a second unit. I would try to get Max and Doug together on the PP if I were you, but considering you also want Morenz and Joliat together it may be easier said than done.

Penalty kill: Very strong. Johnson and Stewart are a great duo on the first unit, as are Marcotte and Pavelich up front. Clancy should be an ideal second unit PK guy, breaking up the attacks of less-skilled second unit PPs with his speed and anticipation and preventing them from every gaining control (ideally). Kasper, Ward, and Harris are all solid as well.

 

[VanIslander]

Top pairing: Strong. An average #1 and an above-average #2.

Really? But they were drafted as a below average #1 and a clearly #3!

Clancy was 13th overall (before a couple of others equally deserving, including Pilote, clearly more deserving)... anyways.... average #1 at best! (or slightlightly below, all things considered). Stewart, though, an above average #2? Uh,.. he was drafted 29th, which makes his a 3rd dman in this draft, but you think him not only a 2nd, but an average 2nd and not only a 2nd but ABOVE average? I hope you misspoke and we can put this in a can. Otherwise,... in this 24-team draft, your comments need a lot of explaining to make any sense of them (whether we agree or not, to make them minimally intelligible we need something).

 

[rmartin65]

View attachment 94539

Coach: Lester Patrick

Aurèle Joliat - Howie Morenz (A) - Helmuts Balderis
Doug Bentley - Max Bentley - Dave Taylor (A)
Zach Parise - Duke Keats - Jimmy Ward
Marty Pavelich - Steve Kasper - Don Marcotte
Dave Trottier, Billy Burch

Jack Stewart - King Clancy (C)
Art Ross - Tom Johnson
Ted Harris - Jiří Bubla
Marc-Edouard Vlasic

Jiří Holeček
Percy LeSueur

Powerplay:

Keats
Morenz - Joliat
Clancy - M. Bentley

Taylor
Balderis - D. Bentley
Bubla - Ross

Penalty Kill

Marcotte - Pavelich
Stewart - Johnson

Kasper - Ward
Harris - Clancy​

Coaching and Leadership
Good coach, but your letters leave me rather uninspired. Especially Taylor, there has to be someone better, right?

1st Line
Awesome. Super fast, super skilled, and you have proven chemistry between your LW and C.

2nd Line
Again, I like the chemistry you have between the LW and C, but I think you missed the mark with Taylor, from a talent aspect at least. He brings the right attributes, but at 24 teams, I think Taylor is more of a 3rd liner. That said, the talent level probably all averages out.

3rd Line
I dont understand Keats on this line... I think this good have been a really nice hounding two-way line, but Keats really throws a wrench in there.

4th Line
Haha, you wont get a lot of offense out of this one, but it might be the best defensive line in the draft. From a defensive standpoint, this line really has it all.

1st Pairing
I'm higher on Stewart than most, so I think this pairing works pretty well. It might be a bit below average in terms of talent, but stylistically the two seem to match.

2nd Pairing
I like it. Strong in terms of both talent (I have Johnson as a solid #3, and Ross as a lower-end 3) and fit. This pairing should have a problem against most 2nd lines.

3rd Pairing
It's just ok. I think it wont be fun for forwards to go up against, but I worry about puck movement (though I see that Bubla was lauded for being a strong passer).

Goalies
Nothing stands out, positively or negatively.

Spares
I'd consider moving Burch up to take Keats' spot. You'd definitely sacrifice some offense, but I think that line would work better... and I think your team will get a lot of offense from your top 2 lines anyway.

Special Teams
Strong, all the way around, both PP and PK. Well done.

3 things I like
1) 1st Line
2) 2nd Pairing
3) Special Teams

3 things I don’t like
1) 3rd Line
2) Taylor on L2
3) 3rd Pairing

 

[Namba 17]

Yes, Mosienko is a slightly better goal scorer. However, that is ALL he will provide. Patrick Kane is both a threat to score AND make a great pass.

Mosienko's 7 years assists VxV is on par with
Frank Mahovlich,
Maurice Richard,
Mike Bossy
Jason Spezza,
Mike Modano,
Pierre Turgeon
and
Sweeney Schriner (!).

Mosienko is better passer than:
Roy Conacher,
Syl Apps,
Jari Kurri,
Mats Sundin,
Theoren Fleury,
Eric Lindros,
Jeremy Roenick,
Aurel Joliat,
Dave Keon
Jarome Iginla,
Luc Robitaille
Jamie Benn
John LeClair
Brendan Shanahan
and some others all-time great.

Your 4th line currently contains pretty much just one guy who will be good at passing the puck - Joe Primeau. Not only will this line be predictable (all the offense going through Primeau), but what are Mosienko and Heatley going to do when they don't have the puck? Neither was known for much of anything beyond goal scoring. If you had one winger that was more balanced between goals and assists, this line would be much, much better. Then the other team wouldn't have to worry about only Primeau passing pucks to Heatley, but those passes also coming from the other wing as well. This is the reason why the Caps' PP this year is so deadly. Ovechkin isn't the only guy you have to worry about anymore. Even if you cheat to cover him, you'll get burned by someone else. A unit having those kinds of options is what makes a line great.

Heatley's 7 years assists VxV is on par with Cooney Weiland and only slightly worse than Eric Staal, Jarome Iginla and Dave Keon. He is better than:
Luc Robitaille
Saku Koivu
Rod Brind'Amour
Jamie Benn
John LeClair
Brendan Shanahan
David Krejci
John Tavares
and some others.
In 2006/2007 Heatley was play-off assists' leader.
So, he is capable to make a pass. Not great, but good enough.
He is also used to play with Kovalchuk (high goal-scoring winger) and did just fine.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Line 1: I love Balderis but this feels like a below average first line to me (obviously you've split your top forwards so this is a bit expected). This line will certainly be able to score but in a PvP matchup I am not sure how many top lines they can outscore. I'm guessing you'll run your top two lines rather equally, so we will have the normal matchup questions during a PO series.


PP: I like your PP 1 but your PP 2 is really intriguing to me, I don't know enough about Jiri Bulba.

Thanks for the review.

I have to disagree with my 1st line being below average. Yes, Balderis is a 2nd liner in a draft this size. However, Morenz is the 5th best C of all-time, making him an elite 1st line C, and Joliat was ranked as the 8th best LW on the HOH top W list (you could argue between him, Moore, Mahovlich and Denneny), making him at worst an above average 1st line LW. If you average them all out, I'd be surprised if my 1st line is worse than "average".

Unless I am mistaken, Bubla was the main offensive threat on the back end for the Czechoslovaks in the mid to late 70s. His offensive numbers in the domestic leagues are relatively strong in comparison to the Fs.

Second line: I'll say it -- I'm not a big fan of reuniting the Bentley brothers at even strength. They didn't win anything while playing together, didn't even come close, and they could be pushed around by bigger forward lines. But if you're going to do it, having them on a second line to shelter them from top pairings is a very good way to do it, and Dave Taylor adds some muscle to the line (although not as much skill as you'd like for a second line).

Third line: Looks like a two-way line with Parise and Ward as solid two-way wings at this level. What does Keats bring as a two-way or defensive centre? Offensively, you have the slower Keats dishing the puck to the speedy wingers. I've always been a little down on Keats because of his rep as a slow skater...but that's probably not really fair as there have been centres in all eras that were successful without being fast. Ryan Getzlaf might be a good comparison.

Thanks for the review.

I don't think we can punish the Bentley brothers for not winning anything while playing together. First, they only spent four years together in their primes, which isn't that long. Second, they did as much as they could given the the personnel on the team. Two playoff appearances including a trip to the Finals doesn't seem too bad to me.

Keats is a good defensive player. Have you checked his bio made by RB in 2016?

Of all the positions in The Leader's All-star prairie hockey team, none caused us more profound meditation than the center ice job. We weighed the pros and cons of our two best bets - Duke Keats and Dick Irvin - until we were beginning to order Keats sandwiches and Irvin pie along with our coffee at the restaurant across the way. First we thought Irvin would be our ultimate choice; then the Duke popped up with an overlooked asset. Barney Stanley crossed their path for a minute; then Irvin again looked like a winner, until finally we had the merits and demerits of the two candidates trimmed down to such a nicety that we knew exactly where we stood. And we gave Keats the call. Both Keats and Irvin are pretty much invalids right now, but this fact was entirely overlooked in selecting the best man for the job. What turned the balance in favor of the Edmonton bad man was his back-checking ability. He is a two-way man, while Dickenson has a tendency toward a one-way ticket. Irvin is a better shot than the Duke and a better stick-handler, but Keats himself is far from being a slouch on the attack; he is an ideal pivot man, plays his position to perfection and knows all there is to know about combination. And his vigorous back-checking adds all kinds of strength to his team.There is no better shot in professional hockey than Dick Irvin. The Regina boy is a wizard at finding the treasured spot in the net. And his wonderful manipulation of the puck had won him friends wherever he has played. It is unfortunate that such a star as Dickenson should have to be passed up in favor of another; but backchecking is an invaluable asset to a hockey team, and just as we were on the point of awarding the position to Irvin, we recalled this very important factor and could do nothing else in fairness but to give Duke the job. Keats originally played hockey in the east but acquired little prominence until he burst into the limelight with the Eskimos last year. Ever since he has been one of the biggest noises in prairie hockey. The Duke is an ideal type of athlete, of husky build, quick on his skates, and possessing a good abundance of grey matter. He has one fault and that is temperament. ... There are man who will think Barney Stanley deserves the call. The General has been playing wonderful hockey lately while Irvin has been resting up. He is the most unselfish player in the league and one of the most effective. But he can't shoot like Irvin or check back like Keats.

Of all the positions in The Leader's All-star prairie hockey team, none caused us more profound meditation than the center ice job. We weighed the pros and cons of our two best bets - Duke Keats and Dick Irvin - until we were beginning to order Keats sandwiches and Irvin pie along with our coffee at the restaurant across the way. First we thought Irvin would be our ultimate choice; then the Duke popped up with an overlooked asset. Barney Stanley crossed their path for a minute; then Irvin again looked like a winner, until finally we had the merits and demerits of the two candidates trimmed down to such a nicety that we knew exactly where we stood. And we gave Keats the call. Both Keats and Irvin are pretty much invalids right now, but this fact was entirely overlooked in selecting the best man for the job. What turned the balance in favor of the Edmonton bad man was his back-checking ability. He is a two-way man, while Dickenson has a tendency toward a one-way ticket. Irvin is a better shot than the Duke and a better stick-handler, but Keats himself is far from being a slouch on the attack; he is an ideal pivot man, plays his position to perfection and knows all there is to know about combination. And his vigorous back-checking adds all kinds of strength to his team. There is no better shot in professional hockey than Dick Irvin. The Regina boy is a wizard at finding the treasured spot in the net. And his wonderful manipulation of the puck had won him friends wherever he has played. It is unfortunate that such a star as Dickenson should have to be passed up in favor of another; but backchecking is an invaluable asset to a hockey team, and just as we were on the point of awarding the position to Irvin, we recalled this very important factor and could do nothing else in fairness but to give Duke the job. Keats originally played hockey in the east but acquired little prominence until he burst into the limelight with the Eskimos last year. Ever since he has been one of the biggest noises in prairie hockey. The Duke is an ideal type of athlete, of husky build, quick on his skates, and possessing a good abundance of grey matter. He has one fault and that is temperament. ... There are man who will think Barney Stanley deserves the call. The General has been playing wonderful hockey lately while Irvin has been resting up. He is the most unselfish player in the league and one of the most effective. But he can't shoot like Irvin or check back like Keat

Really? But they were drafted as a below average #1 and a clearly #3!
Clancy was 13th overall (before a couple of others equally deserving, including Pilote, clearly more deserving)... anyways.... average #1 at best! (or slightlightly below, all things considered). Stewart, though, an above average #2? Uh,.. he was drafted 29th, which makes his a 3rd dman in this draft, but you think him not only a 2nd, but an average 2nd and not only a 2nd but ABOVE average? I hope you misspoke and we can put this in a can. Otherwise,... in this 24-team draft, your comments need a lot of explaining to make any sense of them (whether we agree or not, to make them minimally intelligible we need something).

Thanks for the review.

How is the ~30th best D a #3 in a 24 team draft? This isn't a 15 team draft. If Stewart is a #3, then Seibert is a #2, and Chara is a below average #2. I think your "comments need a lot of explaining to make any sense of them". For now, I'll just assume you made a simple mathematical error.

Good coach, but your letters leave me rather uninspired. Especially Taylor, there has to be someone better, right?

2nd Line
Again, I like the chemistry you have between the LW and C, but I think you missed the mark with Taylor, from a talent aspect at least. He brings the right attributes, but at 24 teams, I think Taylor is more of a 3rd liner. That said, the talent level probably all averages out.

3rd Line
I dont understand Keats on this line... I think this good have been a really nice hounding two-way line, but Keats really throws a wrench in there.

1st Pairing
I'm higher on Stewart than most, so I think this pairing works pretty well. It might be a bit below average in terms of talent, but stylistically the two seem to match.


Spares
I'd consider moving Burch up to take Keats' spot. You'd definitely sacrifice some offense, but I think that line would work better... and I think your team will get a lot of offense from your top 2 lines anyway.

Thanks for the review.

Taylor was captain for five years with the Kings. They didn't do anything while he was the C, but he actually has the most experience as an actual C. The 2nd A could easily go to a guy like Stewart, Johnson, Parise or whomever if Taylor is not up to the task.


Taylor is definitely not an ideal 2nd liner. However, all I'm expecting Taylor to do is go into the corners, hit the bodies, get the puck to the Bentleys ASAP and make sure they aren't being pushed around. If he can keep it simple, he'll be fine. He won't be expected to run the offense or do anything out of his comfort zone as he's the third wheel here.


Keats is the playmaker on the line, the "brains". An estimated VsX for Keats would probably put him in the 80-85 range which is very strong for a 3rd liner. He is also pretty decent defensively. Check the quotes above in my response to overpass.


Clancy is average as a #1 D (~13th best D), while Stewart (~30th best D) should be above average, maybe even elite (~6th best #2 in the draft). I'd say it's at worst average.


Burch is significantly worse offensively than Keats, and I haven't really found anything on his defensive game. Not to mention that Keats is also much more physically imposing. I drafted Keats with the purpose of having at least one big and mean body down the middle who was at least good defensively (Burch isn't small, but he doesn't check the mean or defense box).

 

[Dreakmur]

​

NEW JERSEY SWAMP DEVILS​

Coach: Pete Green
Assistant Coach: Ken Hitchcock​

​

Dickie Moore - Joe Sakic (A) - Gordie Drillon
Johnny Gottselig - Alexander Maltsev - Jarome Iginla
Bob Pulford - Phil Goyette - Claude Provost
Boris Mayorov - Joe Nieuwendyk - Eddie Oatman​

​

Slava Fetisov (C) - Drew Doughty
Hap Day - Sylvio Mantha (A)
Rod Seiling - Kris Letang​

​

Georges Vezina
Dave Kerr​

​

Spares: Gilles Tremblay LW, Jeff Carter C/RW, Doug Barkley
​

​

PP 1: Dickie Moore - Alexander Maltsev - Gordie Drillon - Joe Sakic - Slava Fetisov
PP2: Johnny Gottselig - Joe Nieuwendyk - Jarome Iginla - Phil Goyette - Kris Letang​

​

PK1: Bob Pulford - Claude Provost - Hap Day - Sylvio Mantha
PK2: Alexander Maltsev - Johnny Gottselig - Slava Fetisov - Drew Doughty
PK3: Joe Sakic - Boris Mayorov
Extra D: Rod Seiling​

​

​

Estimated Ice Time Forwards
Note: *Sakic and Goyette play the point on the 1st and 2nd PP respectively.
Drillon sees limited ES ice time in defensive situations, in favor of Iginla and Provost.

Name	ES	PP	PK	Total
Dickie Moore	14	4	0	18
Joe Sakic	14	5*	1	20*
Gordie Drillon	11	4	0	15
Johnny Gottselig	13	3	2	18
Alexander Maltsev	13	4	2	19
Jarome Iginla	15	3	0	18
Bob Pulford	13	0	4	17
Phil Goyette	13	2*	0	15*
Claude Provost	14	0	4	18
Boris Mayorov	6	0	1	7
Joe Nieuwendyk	6	3	0	9
Eddie Oatman	6	0	0	6
Total	138	28*	14	180*

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Estimated Ice Time Defensemen

Name	ES	PP	PK	Total
Slava Fetisov	18	5	3	26
Drew Doughty	18	0	3	21
Hap Day	16	0	4	20
Sylvio Mantha	16	0	4	20
Rod Seiling	12	0	0	12
Kris Letang	12	2	0	14
Total	92	7*	14	113*

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

​

 

[Theokritos]

...he was not offence-first and only coach. I don't know there was it taken from. His believed, that every player must play defense and must give everything each shift. Even Kharlamov and Firsov backchecked in his teams because they had to.

I certainly dont think Tarasov is an offense-only coach, but I do think he was an offensive-leaning one. To paraphrase a quote of his from his bio, Tarasov believed that you cant consistently beat good teams by playing defense first, because then you cede the initiative. I definitely agree that he valued defensive ability and effort...

Two somewhat relevant comments from a Soviet observer:

Here are some interesting remarks on Tarasov and Chernyshov and their different approaches by Russian journalist Anatoly Salutsky (*1938). Salutsky has written on hockey since the late 1950s and has published a biography of Vsevolod Bobrov in 1984.

"As a coach, Arkady Chernyshov has always been famous for attaching great importance to the defensive tasks. Not that his tactic can be called defensive: he [also] paid a great deal of attention to the attack. But the fundamental difference between his coaching concept and the idea of Tarasov was that Chernyshov did not allow his defencemen to connect to the attack too actively. He required them to always meet the opponent at the blue line in order to prevent unexpected breakthroughs. The wingers on the other hand were given the opportunity to remain at the forefront of the attack and to rarely track back to the defensive zone."
​

Another interesting comment by Salutsky, complete with a rare longer quote by Chernyshov himself:

"There was one more fundamental difference between the coaching concepts of Chernyshov and Tarasov: not a tactical one, but rather a pedagogical one. Tarasov was an adherent of 'Kolkhoz hockey', equally demanding all players to sacrifice themselves. Chernyshov was a principled opponent of this approach. He once said: 'I don't remember any case when Bobrov blocked the puck with his body. And to me that was fine. Tarasov used to throw himself into shots [when he was still an active player] to make up for some other shortcomings, and also demanded it from other players. But imagine Bobrov throwing himself into a shot... To me, Bobrov was too valuable for this. He takes a puck, he has to leave the game – what a great loss for his team. This prompted me to not demand such actions from Bobrov. Later, I never put Aleksandr Maltsev on the ice when our team was shorthanded. Maltsev wasn't made for playing 4 against 5. A clever player like him must be used when the opponent is one man short. Why use generals like Bobrov and Maltsev at the front line in an infantery attack?'"
​

 

[Sturminator]

Line 1: I love Balderis but this feels like a below average first line to me (obviously you've split your top forwards so this is a bit expected). This line will certainly be able to score but in a PvP matchup I am not sure how many top lines they can outscore. I'm guessing you'll run your top two lines rather equally, so we will have the normal matchup questions during a PO series.

Not sure I understand the criticism of this line here. It looks like an outstanding unit to me. Joliat/Morenz is obviously an excellent core, and Balderis fits in nicely next to them, playing the same role as their longtime real-life RW, Johnny Gagnon. As the third piece of a 1st line, Balderis is high-end in terms of talent and scoring ability, made possible because of how well-rounded the Joliat/Morenz tandem is. I dunno...this looks like an outstanding unit to me.

 

[Sturminator]

3rd Line
You wont get much offense out of this one, but it looks like a strong checking line. Unfortunately, I think it's lack of offense really limits it.

Graham is kind of a black hole offensively at this level, but Prentice - Backstrom is the nucleus of a strong two-way unit. They can definitely score. If the unit is in need of more offensive pop, Doan can easily slide up to that position on the line. This looks like a strong unit, to me.

 

[Sturminator]

Mikhailov will go to the net and make sure they don't remain on the perimeter. Possibly a little light on puckwinning? Although Mikita and Mikhailov will contribute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mikhailov was more of a net front man than a strong corner man, right?

Mikhailov was a good digger. He wasn't overly big, but he was strong and determined, and very good at controlling the puck in tight spaces. Excellent passer off of the boards, as well. Boris' all-around game seems to still be underrated around here. Between he and Mikita, I think that line's going to be just fine.

 

[Sturminator]

Random question: was Brad Park really six feet tall as listed? I assumed he was 5'10" or so based on pics and video and was surprised to see him listed at six feet even.

Park and Orr were about the same size. Maybe Bobby had a half inch on Brad, but it wasn't noticeable, and they spent plenty of time squaring off against one another. If Orr was six feet tall, Park probably was, as well.

 

[VMBM]

By North American standards, Mikhailov was neither big (actually not much taller or heavier than Kharlamov) nor particulary strong imo. But he was persistent, clever and tough, and often fought for the puck in the corner.

However, while Mikhailov was from good to very good at almost everything, he was a 'master around the net', as Dan Gallivan said during the 1979 Challenge Cup. So, more of a slot man/goal-scorer than a corner man/playmaker (if such preference/distinction had to be made).

 

[tinyzombies]

MONTREAL "N.D.G." MAROONS
1926 and 1935 Stanley Cup Champions

GM: tinyzombies
Coach: Iron Mike Keenan
Asst. Coach: Larry Robinson
Captain: Jean Beliveau
Alternates: John Bucyk & Scott Niedermayer


John Bucyk - Jean Beliveau - Martin St. Louis
Rick Martin - Gilbert Perreault - Marian Gaborik / Harry Hyland
Bun Cook - Vyacheslav Starshinov (R) - Bernie Morris
Dick Duff / John Madden - Bobby Holik (R) - Frank Finnigan

Chris Pronger - Jan Suchy
Harvey Pulford - Scott Niedermayer
Leo Boivin - Bullet Joe Simpson / Albert "Battleship" Leduc

Grant Fuhr
Tim Thomas

PP1:
Bucyk - Beliveau - St. Louis
Suchy - Pronger

PP2:
Starshinov
Simpson - Perreault - Martin
Niedermayer

PK1: Madden - Finnigan - Boivin - Pronger/Niedermayer
PK2: Starshinov (R) - St. Louis - Pulford - Leduc

Estimated Minutes Per Game, Forwards
​

Player	ES	PP	PK	Total
Jean Beliveau	16	5	0	21
Gilbert Perreault	16	3	0	17
Martin St. Louis	15	3	0	18
John Bucyk	12	5	0	17
Richard Martin	14	1	0	15
Vyacheslav Starshinov	12	0	3	15
Marian Gaborik / Harry Hyland​	8 8​	0 0	0 0	8 8
Bernie Morris	13	1	0	12
Bun Cook	11	0	0	11
Dick Duff / John Madden (C / LW)​	7 3​	0 0​	0 4​	7 7
Bobby Holik	7	0	0	7
Frank Finnigan	8	0	5	13
Totals:	150	18	12	180

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

*Madden platoon with Holik and Duff depending on line shadowed and what side faceoff is on. Madden played LW with Holik and shut down Mario/Jagr in conf. final.

Estimated Minutes Per Game, Defensemen

Player	ES	PP	PK	Total
Chris Pronger	19	5	2	26
Scott Niedermayer	20	3	2	25
Jan Suchy	12	3	0	15
Harvey Pulford	15	0	3	18
Leo Boivin	13	0	3	16
Joe Simpson / Albert Leduc​	7 8​	3 0​	0 2​	10 10​
Totals:	93	14	12	120

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

​

*Pronger/Niedermayer to play crucial minutes as a pair.

 

[kruezer]

Yeah I deserved the takedown I got for dissing Morenz with Joliat and Balderis. This is an excellent top line. Top 12 in the draft (might post a quick ranking of the top lines if I get time this evening).

 

[tinyzombies]

Morenz might be a bit underrated in this draft. He was a great two way player and all the oldsters (Cyclone included) thought he was the greatest player they had seen to date and nobody thought Rocket was better. I posted those comments from the bio in Dishing the Dirt. I wonder if he should be ranked ahead of Beliveau. That would make him the greatest Hab ever and I’m starting to buy that argument. Bourque, Kelly, Robinson, Potvin don’t belong ahead of him. Many players said he was a better player than Shore. Shore said he was the best. I’m thinking he should probably be ahead of Beliveau and Harvey also. The player that knocked him off the throne was Howe. I can see Harvey going ahead of him in ATD because of positional reasons, but Harvey was never the best player in the world let alone best player over 60+ years of hockey.

Been studying the 1960 finals too and Harvey’s acceleration/speed and creativity/vision are astounding. I always thought he was overrated even tho he’s from my neighborhood. He hung out with my grandfather and always said he could have done the things Orr did if he was allowed. Looking at the video closely I now believe him. I thought his draft positions here were inflated because of position value but now I think it’s fairly accurate. Old Habs players said he wasn’t the best player they had but was the most important. So, maybe he’s still a bit high, but still - what a player.