All-Time Draft #12 Line-up Assassination Thread

[God Bless Canada]

Now that teams are starting to complete their rosters, it's time to start with another ATD tradition: evaluations. Please post your completed rosters here.

Click to read more...

 

[Dreakmur]

Hamilton Bettmans (Johnny Engine and Dreakmur)

Coach - Don Cherry
Assistant Coach - Roger Neilson

Vladimir Krutov - Mario Lemieux [A] - Hooley Smith [C]
Tommy Smith - Darryl Sittler [A] - Billy Boucher
Tommpy Phillips - Art Chapman - Blair Russel
Percy Galbraith - Red Berenson - Mush March

Valery Vasiliev [A] - Moose Johnson
Jan Suchy - Bert Corbeau
Dunc Munro - Red Dutton

Clint Benedict
Tom Paton

Spares: Corb Denneny and Jack Campbell

Minor League : Jim Riley - Clare McKerrow - Cully Wilson - Bobby Trapp - Jim McKenny - Nicklas Backstrom

Powerplay
Unit #1: Vladimir Krutov - Mario Lemieux - Hooley Smith - Jan Suchy - Bert Corbeau
Unit #2: Tommy Smith - Darryl Sittler - Tommy Phillips - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson

Penalty Kill
Unit #1: Hooley Smith - Tommy Phillips - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson
Unit #2: Art Chapman - Blair Russel - Dunc Munro - Red Dutton
Unit #3: Red Berenson - Percy Galbraith

Shut-down Unit: Tommy Phillips - Art Chapman - Blair Russel - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson

 

[Jungosi]

Betelgeuse Hitchhikers

Coach : Harry Sinden
Assistant : Bill Dineen

Keith Tkachuk - Wayne Gretzky - Jari Kurri
Alexander Yakushev - Vyacheslav Starshinov - Helmut Balderis
Nick Metz - Doug Jarvis - Rusty Crawford
Johnny Peirson - Paul Ronty - Don Maloney
Ron Duguay

Rod Langway - Larry Murphy
Sergei Zubov - Leo Reise jr.
Glen Harmon - Dave Langevin
Dan Boyle

Jiri Holecek
Roger Crozier

Spare team

Rick Kehoe - Erich Kuehnhackl - Serge Bernier
Udo Kiessling - Hy Buller
Evgeni Nabokov

Special teams :

Powerplay unit 1 : Tkachuk - Gretzky - Kurri - Murphy - Harmon
Powerplay unit 2 : Yakushev - Starshinov - Balderis - Zubov - Reise
Penalty kill unit 1 : Jarvis - Metz - Langway - Zubov
Penalty kill unit 2 : Gretzky - Kurri - Murphy - Langevin

I'll try to review some teams tomorrow.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Betelgeuse Hitchhikers review...

*The first thing I see is continuity. Gretzky and Kurri rates among the best duos in league history. I'm pretty sure Langway and Murphy would have played together at some point during their Washington years.
*Tkachuk's a guy who is best served on a second line, even though he has the ability to be a first line guy. He is a guy with some warts. He should be fine, though, playing the role of a space-opener with Gretz and Kurri - providing a strong forecheck, working hard along the boards and in the corners, and driving to the front of the net. He'll also provide protection.
*Metz and Jarvis are top-notch defensive forwards. They won't provide much offensively, but they can play a lot of minutes against the opposition's top line. Of course, if they're used too much, they'll take away from the ice time for the second line.
*One question I have is if there's enough toughness up front. How will they stand up to some of the tough, physical, mobile, smart defencemen out there. Will the forwards be able to survive in physical, grinding, best-of-seven series? Or will they be worn down?
*There doesn't appear to be an ace on the blue-line, but there is good depth. Langway and Murphy are solid No. 2s who, as I said before, probably saw some ice time together in Washington, and, at worst, have a strong knowledge of what to expect from each other thanks to their years together. They can also log minutes against the opposition's top pairing, although they might not be an ideal pairing against some of the fastest lines in the draft.
*When I see Harmon on the first PP unit (or any PP unit, for that matter), and Reise on a second PP unit, it makes me wonder about the ability of this defence to advance the puck or work the PP. The flip side is that this is a very reliable, sound and steady defence, and with the exception of Zubov, Jungo should feel comfortable employing any of his defencemen against the opposition's top line.
*Holocek's a solid No. 1. Not terrific. But solid. Won't hurt you. Crozier's one of the better back-ups in the draft.
*I think I like Sinden more than some posters, but he's still a cut below some of the other coaches out there. Probably belongs in the early to mid 20s for coaches.

 

[MXD]

GM : MXD
Coach : Cecil Hart
Asst : Jacques Laperriere
Capitain : Howie Morenz
Alternate : Earl Seibert
Alternate : Charlie Gardiner

Aurele Joliat - Howie Morenz - Johnny Gagnon
Lynn Patrick - Phil Watson - Bryan Hextall Sr.
Murray Murdoch - Fleming Mackell - Cecil Dillon
Charley McVeigh - Andy Blair - Bill Ezinicki :

Bill Goldsworty & Bob Gracie

Earl Seibert - Hod Stuart
Lionel Hitchman - Flash Hollett
Ted Harris - Andrei Markov
Behn Wilson

Charlie Gardiner
Lorne Chabot


PP1 : Aurèle Joliat - Howie Morenz - Cecil Dillon - Flash Hollett - Hod Stuart
PP2 : Lynn Patrick - Phil Watson - Bryan Hextall - Earl Seibert - Andrei Markov

PK1 : Charlei McVeigh - Fleming Mackell - Earl Seibert - Lionel Hitchman
PK 2 : Cecil Dillon - Murray Murdoch - Hod Stuart - Ted Harris

 

[jarek]

I am a big fan of Hod Stuart. He was so far ahead of every other defenseman during his day. I think that Seibert - Stuart pairing will be among the best in the draft.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Kimberley Dynamiters

Head Coach: Pete Green
Ast. Coach: John Muckler

Sid Smith-Joe Sakic (C)-Larry Aurie
Brian Bellows-Marcel Dionne-Reggie Leach
Thomas Steen-Kenta Nilsson-Hakan Loob
Johnny Gottselig-Dave Poulin-Mario Tremblay

Spares: Johnny Wilson, Duane Sutter

Ray Bourque (A)-Rob Blake
Kevin Lowe (A)-Adam Foote
George Owen-Bill Hajt

Grant Fuhr
Charlie Hodge


PP 1: Smith-Dionne-Leach-Bourque-Sakic
PP 2: Steen-Nilsson-Loob-Owen-Blake

PK 1: Poulin-Tremblay-Bourque-Foote
PK 2: Steen-Gottselig-Lowe-Hajt


Call-up squad:

Morris Lukowich-Jason Spezza-Russ Courtnall

Normand Rochefort-Mike Green

Earl Robertson

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Portland Rosebuds

GMs: Nalyd Psycho & Sturminator
Coach: Lester Patrick
Captain: Sid Abel
Alternate Captains: Art Coulter & Bruce Stuart

#12 Sid Abel-#7 Phil Esposito-#21 Mickey MacKay
#6 Paul Thompson-#24 Bernie Federko-#17 Odie Cleghorn
#19 Bruce Stuart-#18 Bobby Smith-#8 Jim Pappin
#20 Camille Henry-#27 Red Sullivan-#4 Pud Glass

#3 J.C. Tremblay-#2 Art Coulter
#16 Leo Boivin-#15 Jim Neilson
#10 Carol Vadnais-#25 Yuri Liapkin

#29 Ken Dryden
#35 Nikolai Khabibulin

Spares: #9 Charlie Burns, #5 Phil Russell & #22 Dennis Hextall

Special Teams:
PP 1: Abel-Esposito-Federko-Tremblay-MacKay
PP 2: Henry-Smith-Thompson-Vadnais-Liapkin
PK 1: Thompson-MacKay-Boivin-Coulter
PK 2: Abel-Pappin-Liapkin-Neilson​

 

[jarek]

Esposito doesn't have a letter? That's very curious. His leadership qualities were outstanding in Boston and especially the Summit Series. He was fiercely loyal to his teammates and called out all of Canada on their booing in the Summit Series. It's just a little weird for Espo to not have at least an A.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Syracuse Bulldogs

Coach: Scotty Bowman
Captain: Gordie Howe

Sweeney Shriner - Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe
Steve Shutt - Frank Frederickson - Mike Gartner
George Hay - Tommy Dunderdale - Lorne Carr
Al Secord - Dale Hunter - Mike Keane

Zdeno Chara - "Ching" Johnson
Lloyd Cook - Kevin Hatcher
Dave Burrows - Mathieu Schneider

Vladislav Tretiak
Mike Vernon

PP 1: Sweeney Shriner - Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe - Zdeno Chara - Lloyd Cook
PP 2: Steve Shutt - Frank Frederickson - Mike Gartner - Kevin Hatcher - Mathieu Schneider

PK 1: Dale Hunter - Mike Gartner - Zdeno Chara - Dave Burrows
PK 2: Gordie Howe - Mike Keane - Ching Johnson - Dave Burrows

Spares on roster:

Jim Roberts, Andre Lacroix, Larry Hillman

Spares for recall:

Don Edwards, Al Arbour, Kent Douglas, Claude Larose, Danny Grant, Lowell MacDonald

 

[pitseleh]

I'm all done:

Nanaimo Clippers

GM: pitseleh
Coach: Art Ross
Captain: Ted Kennedy
Alternate Captains: Michael Peca, Harry Howell

Bobby Hull - Ted Kennedy - Gordie Drillon
Baldy Northcott - Milan Novy - Charlie Conacher
Joe Klukay - Michael Peca - Ed Westfall
Jack Adams - Doug Weight - Jean Pronovost
Milan Hejduk

Harry Howell - Buck Boucher
Pat Stapleton - Bill White
Barry Ashbee - Steve Duchesne
Brian Engblom
Ron Stackhouse

Roy Worters
Dave Kerr

Minors
Nikolai Drozdetsky - Josef Malecek - Vincent Lukac
John Van Boxmeer - Bryan McCabe
Wilf Cude​

PP1: Bobby Hull - Ted Kennedy - Gordie Drillon - Buck Boucher - Steve Duchense
PP2: Baldy Northcott - Milan Novy - Charlie Conacher - Pat Stapleton - Doug Weight

PK1: Ted Kennedy - Ed Westfall - Harry Howell - Buck Boucher
PK2: Michael Peca - Joe Klukay - Pat Stapleton - Bill White

 

[God Bless Canada]

Hamilton Bettmans review...

*The first line will be one of the toughest to play against in the draft. Lemieux wasn't overly physical, but he used his massive frame and strength to make life miserable for opponents. Smith and Krutov bring skill and toughness on the wings. I think Krutov might be better-suited to second line duty, but it's hard to mess up a line with Mario and the Hooley. Teams that have a defensive pairing lacking in grit, toughness and/or size might be wise to keep them away from this bull of a line.
*Not sold on the wingers for the second line. I'm sold on Sittler - I think he's good enough for a first line role. But Smith and Boucher don't do it for me. Competition is a big issue for Smith. He put up numbers, but against who? Boucher had two second place finishes in goals, and a couple third place finishes in points, but it didn't last long. The year before consolidation, his numbers plummeted. He played a little more than a year after consolidation, and it's not like he was a 30-something veteran at the time, either. What Boucher does bring is the gritty presence to that second line.
*The third line is a very, very smart line. In terms of hockey IQ, they're going to among the best in the draft. As stated when you guys picked him, Chapman was the guy I'd targeted for our third line from the outset. The question is how they will do against lines that bring skill and toughness to the table, because I'm not certain there's the big-time physical player on this line.
*Much like Jungo's team, there isn't a legit No. 1 defenceman. Vasiliev is the best of this bunch, but he's a bottom-end No. 1. He's a rock-solid blue-liner, but I wonder if he's better suited to being a No. 2. It means this team doesn't have the minute-muncher who can play 25-30 minutes per game.
*From 1-6, the defence is as tough as any in the draft. Vasiliev's tough. Johnson is tough. Corbeau is tough. Munro is tough. Suchy isn't all that physical, but you need someone to quarterback the power play.
*When I look at this team, I see a lot of guys who never played against the best in the world on a nightly basis. And it's a big concern. They played in fractured leagues, or European leagues. pappy's right when he questions the double-standard in this draft, and why we treat the WCHL and the PCHA and the European leagues different from the WHA. How are they going to adjust to playing against the best ever on a nightly basis, when they never played against the best in the world on a nightly basis? Some players are going to be in for a real learning curve.

 

[Leafs Forever]

When I look at this team, I see a lot of guys who never played against the best in the world on a nightly basis. And it's a big concern. They played in fractured leagues, or European leagues. pappy's right when he questions the double-standard in this draft, and why we treat the WCHL and the PCHA and the European leagues different from the WHA. How are they going to adjust to playing against the best ever on a nightly basis, when they never played against the best in the world on a nightly basis? Some players are going to be in for a real learning curve.

If you are going to critize the PCHA for not having the best in the world at the time, then you are going to have to critize the NHL in that time period for the same thing, because the best were really split between the two. The difference to these leagues and WHA is, to my knowledge, never had any serious opportunity to show itself against the NHL stars in real competition, and succeed, as the WCHL, PCHA, and European leagues (the later ones at least) did.

 

[God Bless Canada]

If you are going to critize the PCHA for not having the best in the world at the time, then you are going to have to critize the NHL in that time period for the same thing, because the best were really split between the two. The difference to these leagues and WHA is, to my knowledge, never had any serious opportunity to show itself against the NHL stars in real competition, and succeed, as the WCHL, PCHA, and European leagues (the later ones at least) did.

And you're right: the talent was split. And that's where you get into the tough part for evaluating talent - how will guys adjust to playing against the best ever, when they never played against the best in the world on a nightly basis. And it was a completely different game back then. We talked about how now it's a different game than 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The rules in the game really haven't changed much. The last major rule change, IMO, that had a visible impact on how the game was changed on a shift-by-shift basis was when they allowed players to pass the puck across their own blue-line back in 44. Since then, the approach has changed many times, and the rule changes have been minor or mild.

We saw the best team from the western leagues play the best team from the NHL/NHA. To my knowledge, there wasn't an all-star game between the two leagues, or a series between the best players from the PCHA/WCHL vs. the best from the NHA/NHL. At least we had that with Summit in 72. We saw the best in the USSR vs. the best in the NHL. And it changed everyone's perceptions.

For the record, if the WHA ever played the NHL in an all-star game, or a Summit-esque series, I think the WHA would have beat the NHL. Not because the WHA was better. But for the guys in the WHA, it would have meant the world to them. To the NHL guys, it would have been an exhibition.

 

[arrbez]

The Inglewood Jacks

Coach: Jacques Demers
Assistant: Rudy Pilous

Frank Mahovlich - Frank Nighbor (C) - Danny Gare
Doug Bentley - Vladimir Petrov - Babe Dye
Alf Smith (A) - Bobby Holik - Floyd Curry
Eddie Shack - Ken Linseman - Wilf Paiement
Extra: Brian Rolston - Pierre Turgeon - Tony Granato
Daniel Sedin - Henrik Sedin

Doug Harvey (A) - Jimmy Watson
Babe Siebert (A) - Jim Schoenfeld
Jack Laviolette - Goldie Prodger
Extra: Yuri Fedorov - Jay Bouwmeester

Hap Holmes
Tom Barrasso
Extra: Olaf Kolzig


Special Teams
PP1: Mahovlich-Petrov-Dye-Harvey-Siebert
PP2: Bentley-Nighbor-Smith-Laviolette-Prodger
PK1: Nighbor-Gare-Watson-Schoenfeld
PK2: Curry-Smith-Harvey-Siebert​

 

[Leafs Forever]

And you're right: the talent was split. And that's where you get into the tough part for evaluating talent - how will guys adjust to playing against the best ever, when they never played against the best in the world on a nightly basis. And it was a completely different game back then. We talked about how now it's a different game than 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The rules in the game really haven't changed much. The last major rule change, IMO, that had a visible impact on how the game was changed on a shift-by-shift basis was when they allowed players to pass the puck across their own blue-line back in 44. Since then, the approach has changed many times, and the rule changes have been minor or mild.

We saw the best team from the western leagues play the best team from the NHL/NHA. To my knowledge, there wasn't an all-star game between the two leagues, or a series between the best players from the PCHA/WCHL vs. the best from the NHA/NHL. At least we had that with Summit in 72. We saw the best in the USSR vs. the best in the NHL. And it changed everyone's perceptions.

For the record, if the WHA ever played the NHL in an all-star game, or a Summit-esque series, I think the WHA would have beat the NHL. Not because the WHA was better. But for the guys in the WHA, it would have meant the world to them. To the NHL guys, it would have been an exhibition.

But they were playing against the best in the world on a nightly basis. Most teams certainly had talent, and considering there weren't that many teams back then, certainly featured some of the best in the world at the time.

Relating the few number of teams, when they met for the cup, the teams facing off were likely loaded with talent, and would likely compete with, or beat, a team made up of the stars of the rest of their league. And in those matches, we know each team would give 100%- it was the cup on the line.

It didn't mean that much to the NHLers by the looks of things at first, but that soon changed. I think they could dig deep for motivation and win, with the big talent difference.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Kimberley Dynamiters review...

*First team that I reviewed that has one of the big advantages in the draft: a front line that can play against an opposition's top line. When Joe Sakic is your centre, you can play that line against anybody. It's a big asset because it takes line-matching out of the equation, and it forces the opposition's top line to concentrate on defence.
*And that's good news, too, because lines centred by Marcel Dionne and Kent Nilsson are not going to be depended on to play against the opposition's best players. Tremendous skill there. But little commitment to their own zone.
*This team has tremendous team offence. Three lines that can score. Guys like Bourque, Blake and Owen who know their way around the offensive zone. Okay, you'll be able to hear a lot of breakout passes from the second pairing hitting the boards, but Bourque, Blake and Owen are great for a transition game.
*It will be interesting to see whether this team employs a five-man shutdown unit against the opposition's best. There are pros and cons. The pros are that such a unit will develop strong cohesion. The con is that it means a lot of ice time for the fourth line and the second pairing.
*I don't know if there's a really punishing forward, an effective space-opener on the first two lines - Aurie's likely the best at that role.
*We looked long and hard at Bellows. Just couldn't justify him for a two-way line or a momentum line. He was probably the best available scoring LW for a while when you snapped him up.
*Team defence could have some problems. Not a qualm with the blue-line. The blue-line has a nice blend of skill and defensive responsibility. But the Dionne and Nilsson lines will be out for a lot of goals against.
*Grant Fuhr gets it. He understands it's not just how many pucks you stop, but when you stop them, and if you win the game. Whether it's 2-1 or 6-5, Fuhr comes up with the big saves when they're needed most.
*I think the trade you made with VCL was a very good one. You dealt Andrechuk and Murray, and it freed you up to take Bellows. Bellows obviously isn't a PP force like Andreychuk, doesn't have Andreychuk's hands in tight, but I think he's a better fit for an ATD at five-on-five than Andreychuk. Big Dave you take for leadership, the power play and his hands. But as far as the better offensive player at even strength in a format like this, give me Bellows.
*Green's a solid coach, in that second tier for coaches.

Kimberley Dynamiters

Head Coach: Pete Green
Ast. Coach: John Muckler

Sid Smith-Joe Sakic (C)-Larry Aurie
Brian Bellows-Marcel Dionne-Reggie Leach
Thomas Steen-Kenta Nilsson-Hakan Loob
Johnny Gottselig-Dave Poulin-Mario Tremblay

Spares: Johnny Wilson, Duane Sutter

Ray Bourque (A)-Rob Blake
Kevin Lowe (A)-Adam Foote
George Owen-Bill Hajt

Grant Fuhr
Charlie Hodge


PP 1: Smith-Dionne-Leach-Bourque-Sakic
PP 2: Steen-Nilsson-Loob-Owen-Blake

PK 1: Poulin-Tremblay-Bourque-Foote
PK 2: Steen-Gottselig-Lowe-Hajt


Call-up squad:

Morris Lukowich-Jason Spezza-Russ Courtnall

Normand Rochefort-Mike Green

Earl Robertson

 

[seventieslord]

To my knowledge, there wasn't an all-star game between the two leagues, or a series between the best players from the PCHA/WCHL vs. the best from the NHA/NHL.

Yes, they had that numerous times.

 

[hfboardsuser]

*Team defence could have some problems. Not a qualm with the blue-line. The blue-line has a nice blend of skill and defensive responsibility. But the Dionne and Nilsson lines will be out for a lot of goals against.

Thanks GBC, your reviews are the cream of the ATD and I read them all just for the evaluations.

Just one question here: I'm also concerned about the defensive liabilities among the forwards, and I'm tempted to drop Bellows out of the lineup in favor of Wilson.

Lines would look like this:

Smith-Sakic-Aurie
Gottselig-Dionne-Leach
Steen-Nilsson-Loob
Wilson-Poulin-Tremblay

Gottselig's not a physical guy either, but at least he'd provide a bit of defensive conscious to the second unit.

My only major regret is taking Dionne over Kennedy. With the way the bottom six shaped out, Sakic/Kennedy would be the best two-way combo.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Thanks GBC, your reviews are the cream of the ATD and I read them all just for the evaluations.

Just one question here: I'm also concerned about the defensive liabilities among the forwards, and I'm tempted to drop Bellows out of the lineup in favor of Wilson.

Lines would look like this:

Smith-Sakic-Aurie
Gottselig-Dionne-Leach
Steen-Nilsson-Loob
Wilson-Poulin-Tremblay

Gottselig's not a physical guy either, but at least he'd provide a bit of defensive conscious to the second unit.

My only major regret is taking Dionne over Kennedy. With the way the bottom six shaped out, Sakic/Kennedy would be the best two-way combo.

I think the world of Johnny Wilson. I'd actually have him in there ahead of Gottselig.

The thing is, your second line is built to be a scoring line. With Dionne there, it's not going to be a good defensive line. So you substitute Bellows for Gottselig on the second line, and put Wilson in the line-up, you've improved the defensive ability of the second line, but you've weakened its offensive ability. If you're looking for a two-way line, then yeah, go with Gottselig on the second line. We wanted a two-way second line, and that's why we went with Lach and Sutter when we did. You want an offensive second line. You want Bellows there.

 

[God Bless Canada]

But they were playing against the best in the world on a nightly basis. Most teams certainly had talent, and considering there weren't that many teams back then, certainly featured some of the best in the world at the time.

Relating the few number of teams, when they met for the cup, the teams facing off were likely loaded with talent, and would likely compete with, or beat, a team made up of the stars of the rest of their league. And in those matches, we know each team would give 100%- it was the cup on the line.

It didn't mean that much to the NHLers by the looks of things at first, but that soon changed. I think they could dig deep for motivation and win, with the big talent difference.

When a guy in the west coast leagues played a game in the 20s, what percentage of the players there were among "the best in the world." What percentage would have played in a consolidated league? Of course, it varied, but what percentage would it have been? And what percentage would it have been in, say, 1912? (I'll leave the war years out of it. While the game wasn't weakened like it was in the Second World War, there was an impact). Prior to the war, there were a lot more options out there, guys retained their amateur status longer. It really is hard to evaluate players. Looking at raw numbers is a fool's ploy, because the game had completely different rules. Even looking at top fives or top 10s is tough, because each player will react to different circumstances differently. A guy who was top two or three in points might not be after consolidation, because of the changes in the game caused by consolidation. Just like a guy who was top five in assists prior to 1929 might not be afterwards, because of how radically different the forward pass in the offensive zone made the game. (It also changed what teams were looking for in a player).

I view consolidation as one of the most significant events in hockey history. Right up there with the NHL/WHA merger, and behind the expansion in 67. Once consolidation happened, for the first time, you could look at a hockey league and say "the best players in the world are in one league." Before there were options. After consolidation, there wasn't.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't see how Bellows can get into this lineup ahead of Gottselig and Wilson. Both are excellent two-way players, and frankly, they were among the NHL's top offensive players more often than Bellows actually was. Yeah, 1000+ points looks great and all, but that is also symptomatic of playing through the 1980s.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Syracuse Bulldogs review...

*The first line is tremendous. Obviously you can go any direction with Gordie, because he's a total offensive weapon and a physical force. (I'd try to surround him with skilled, physical linemates for the ultimate power/skill line, but that's just me). You went with the superb two-way playmaker in Boucher and another offensive machine in Sweeney Schriner - a guy who gets picked way too late in this thing.
*Kudos to give Mike Gartner talent to work with. Frederickson's a solid, skilled, gritty player. I don't know if Shutt's the right player for that line - he's an excellent garbage man, but is he what they need on that line? You have a tremendous trigger man in Gartner. I don't know how many opportunities Shutt will have to "pick up the garbage." But hey, at least Gartner has excellent talent at centre this time.
*Is your third line a scoring line or a two-way line? I'm a Carr fan - he was born about 30 minutes from where I live. But if this is a two-way line, is he good enough defensively to fill that role? Or is he out of place? Because you have Boucher, you don't need a great two-way line as much as a team with a lesser defensive centre on the front line. But if you want a two-way third line, you might want a different winger.
*I got a headache the moment I saw your fourth line. Call it the Headache Line. Skating might be an issue - Middleton and St. Louis are looking forward to blowing by Secord several nights a year. But it's going to be a combative, abrasive, annoying line that will score some goals, and generate a lot of power plays for your team with their agitation.
*Biggest concern is the lack of a No. 1 defenceman. Your top pairing is, well, slow. Yeah, they're big and tough and physical, but a line like LF's Blake-Taylor-Selanne line could be a source of problems. (That would be an interesting match-up). Regardless, that first pairing will administer a lot of hits, and they're tough, but are they mobile enough to keep up with the opposition in a best-of-seven?
*Your defence as a whole is tough. The only guy who isn't imposing is Schneider. Chara's a bad ass. Johnson's a rock. Burrows is the Steady Eddie type. There isn't a ton of skill on this defence, but they'll be tough to play against.
*A guy like Kevin Hatcher could be the key. Nobody ever doubted his ability. It's just that he didn't bring it on a nightly basis. He had nights when he looked like a sure-fire HHOF all-round defenceman. He had other nights - a lot of nights - when he was a non-factor. If his head's on straight, and Bowman gets the most out of him, he'll be your No. 3 defenceman and a force on a nightly basis. But there will also be nights when he's a liability, and he needs to be stapled to the bench.
*Tretiak might be the most polarizing player in the draft. Some love him. They think he's one of the top five goalies ever. They point to his performance in Summit, or the NYE Classic against Montreal. Others think he's a lower-end No. 1. I'm in the middle. I think he's good enough to be a No. 1, without question. But I think he's a mid-tier No. 1. That's why I would have gone for a back-up sooner than you did, although you certainly got a good one in Vernon.

Syracuse Bulldogs

Coach: Scotty Bowman
Captain: Gordie Howe

Sweeney Shriner - Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe
Steve Shutt - Frank Frederickson - Mike Gartner
George Hay - Tommy Dunderdale - Lorne Carr
Al Secord - Dale Hunter - Mike Keane

Zdeno Chara - "Ching" Johnson
Lloyd Cook - Kevin Hatcher
Dave Burrows - Mathieu Schneider

Vladislav Tretiak
Mike Vernon

PP 1: Sweeney Shriner - Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe - Zdeno Chara - Lloyd Cook
PP 2: Steve Shutt - Frank Frederickson - Mike Gartner - Kevin Hatcher - Mathieu Schneider

PK 1: Dale Hunter - Mike Gartner - Zdeno Chara - Dave Burrows
PK 2: Gordie Howe - Mike Keane - Ching Johnson - Dave Burrows

Spares on roster:

Jim Roberts, Andre Lacroix, Larry Hillman

Spares for recall:

Don Edwards, Al Arbour, Kent Douglas, Claude Larose, Danny Grant, Lowell MacDonald

 

[MXD]

Hamilton Bettmans (Johnny Engine and Dreakmur)

Coach - Don Cherry
Assistant Coach - Roger Neilson

Vladimir Krutov - Mario Lemieux [A] - Hooley Smith [C]
Tommy Smith - Darryl Sittler [A] - Billy Boucher
Tommpy Phillips - Art Chapman - Blair Russel
Percy Galbraith - Red Berenson - Mush March

Valery Vasiliev [A] - Moose Johnson
Jan Suchy - Bert Corbeau
Dunc Munro - Red Dutton

Clint Benedict
Tom Paton

Spares: Corb Denneny and Jack Campbell

Minor League : Jim Riley - Clare McKerrow - Cully Wilson - Bobby Trapp - Jim McKenny - Nicklas Backstrom

Powerplay
Unit #1: Vladimir Krutov - Mario Lemieux - Hooley Smith - Jan Suchy - Bert Corbeau
Unit #2: Tommy Smith - Darryl Sittler - Tommy Phillips - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson

Penalty Kill
Unit #1: Hooley Smith - Tommy Phillips - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson
Unit #2: Art Chapman - Blair Russel - Dunc Munro - Red Dutton
Unit #3: Red Berenson - Percy Galbraith

Shut-down Unit: Tommy Phillips - Art Chapman - Blair Russel - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson

- I can't see how your first line could be better with what you have, but I don't see it as an ideal line for Lemieux, because it will be a Lemieux one-man show at times. Of course, Hooley Smith is perfect, absolutely perfect for a 2-way right winger able to play with an edge, yet still be able to produce. My problem, however, is Krutov. Unless he's playing with the Green Unit, he shouldn't be on an ATD first line, because he doesn't produce enough and doesn't bring enough "secondary skills". The good thing is : Lemieux might be the best player in the draft as far as being able to be a one-man-show is concerned. Tommy Smith isn't an option, and you'd really screw your 3rd line by putting Phillips on the first. Besides, Philipps kindof brings what Smith does, so it wouldn't be a great fit.
- I really wanted Boucher for obvious reasons (4th line, and spot duty with Joliat and Morenz against bigger teams). But you picked him. Anyways.... The Sittler line is well-built, and Sittler is an upper-tier 2nd C in this draft. But that line is really C-driven, a bit like your first.
- Philipps-Chapman-Russell is simply awesome. Not a problem with that line. Those guys could play A LOT. It's might be your 2nd line, as far as IT is concerned.
- Considering that, the 4th is... puzzling. They're not a good offensively as your 3rd, they're not as good defensively as your 3rd, but they're also LESS physical as well, unless there's something I don't know about Galbraith.
- Vasiliev-Johnson-Suchy is a very good Top-3. I don't buy Corbeau as a Top-4 guy in this draft, but he indeed brings something that will make him useful, along Suchy. Your 4th is probably Dutton. I do know a bit about Dunc Munro, and at this point, I don't see what makes him an ATD'er. I'll look into things, though.
- Benedict? Solid. Top-tier goalie. Paton? There might be a wide range of opinions about him. A bottom-tier backup here IMO, but you have an upper-tier starter, so it kindof make sense.
- I already covered the head coach point. Great much by picking Neilson.

 

[seventieslord]

When a guy in the west coast leagues played a game in the 20s, what percentage of the players there were among "the best in the world." What percentage would have played in a consolidated league? Of course, it varied, but what percentage would it have been? And what percentage would it have been in, say, 1912? (I'll leave the war years out of it. While the game wasn't weakened like it was in the Second World War, there was an impact). Prior to the war, there were a lot more options out there, guys retained their amateur status longer. It really is hard to evaluate players. Looking at raw numbers is a fool's ploy, because the game had completely different rules. Even looking at top fives or top 10s is tough, because each player will react to different circumstances differently. A guy who was top two or three in points might not be after consolidation, because of the changes in the game caused by consolidation. Just like a guy who was top five in assists prior to 1929 might not be afterwards, because of how radically different the forward pass in the offensive zone made the game. (It also changed what teams were looking for in a player).

I view consolidation as one of the most significant events in hockey history. Right up there with the NHL/WHA merger, and behind the expansion in 67. Once consolidation happened, for the first time, you could look at a hockey league and say "the best players in the world are in one league." Before there were options. After consolidation, there wasn't.

There is plenty of evidence that the top-level PCHA teams and players were as good as the top-level NHA/NHL teams and players. Although the difference in Stanley Cup series victories looks large, it is only a small difference in games won, and the west actually had the GF/GA edge. Besides that, we have those yearly all-star series in New York that you didn't know about, and then the dominance of players such as Newsy Lalonde, Fred Taylor, Frank Nighbor, Didier Pitre, Eddie Oatman, Tom Dunderdale, Tom Phillips, Gord Roberts, and others who played both in the east and west and attained similar levels of dominance in each. The evidence is there that the best players were split, 50/50, give or take, between the east and the west. By the time the NHA was formed in 1910, there was a consolidation of talent like never before. You didn't have to look to 3/4 leagues to find all the best players. For years, they were in two - The NHA/NHL and the PCHA.

So with the relative equality between east and west well-established, why penalize a player for playing in a system like this? Was it his fault the leagues were split up? Was he playing inferior competition as a result? The answer is no. Simply, he was only playing against half of the best players. If the leagues combined and the number of teams remained the same, any player would still be playing the same percentage of "top" players. Once you start considering the west to be a "conference" and the east the other conference, and considering that the east and west teams met in the finals (like the world series, for example), then you can get over your irrational fear of pre-1926 players. Seriously, try it!

Two other corrections to your posts so far:

1. The end of the top-level amateurs happened well before the 1910 inagural NHA season so I have no idea why mentioning that was relevant.

2. Who did Tommy Smith score against? He played in this league called the NHA, it was the same league as the NHL but under a different name. His opponents were players like Frank Nighbor and Newsy Lalonde. In other words, the same place those players built the majority of their legacies. Did you think Smith was a turn-of-the-century player?