All-Time Draft #7, Part IV

[Leaf Lander]

someone call the hockey draft hot line and wake john flyers fan up from his slumber

 

[shawnmullin]

I don't think Smith faced a lot of odd-man rushes with Bobby Orr as his partner. Not with Orr's speed and ability to get back in the play. I'm guessing Smith will face more odd-man rushes in one year with Leetch than he did in three years with Orr. And Leetch isn't that bad defensively, either.

And there's a lot more than just Horton, Langway, Stevens and a few others when it comes to defensive defencemen. Butch Bouchard? Not to mention guys like Bourque, Kelly, Chelios and Lidstrom and Harvey who were outstanding defensively in addition to their offensive skills. There are a lot of defencemen who were better defensively than Smith.

There were still a lot of good/very good defensive defencemen available when you nabbed Smith. Smith was one of them. There just wasn't much separation between those defensive defencemen. That's why Smith's a good pick for the first pick of Round No. 20. I just have concerns how he'll do getting No. 3 minutes.

I think Foote went about 50-100 picks too early as well. I wouldn't take him ahead of a Rob Blake or a Marcel Pronovost, or even a JC Tremblay or a Carl Brewer. I don't think Foote's a No. 2 or 3 defenceman. Based on what I've been able to tell by reading and talking to those who watched Smith play when he was down here, I'd say Foote was quicker and more physical than Smith. Foote was also bigger, too.

Smith might have been strong, but remember, Dave Babych was one of the strongest players of his day, too.

One thing to remember here though is that our D is not going to be relying heavily one a top pairing. It's going to be a unit of guys working together with very repsonsible forwards to play solid team defence. The key is that among our guys none are going to take stupid risks and cause a lot of odd man rushes or turnovers. It's going to be a strong team game.

Smith is not going to play the PP, he won't get Leetch or Savard's minutes by any means. This is a guy who is a strong, smart, defensive guy who will be a good partner for our top puck mover. I don't personally break it down into 3rd, 4th D or any of that. Do they suit their roles?

Also remember Smith had a great plus minus and was part of a strong team without Orr too.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

What do you know?

"He gained a reputation as an excellent defensive defenseman -- as well as a wide repute as the league's strongest man"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Smith

He was one of six invited to the Summit Series and though he declined it was said the team missed his strength.

All I'm saying is his style works well with Leetch's.

I do know that anyone can edit wikipedia and that as a result it is a crappy reference.

 

[shawnmullin]

FYI 1975-76 Bobby Orr played 10 games for the Bruins and Dallas Smith?

77 games, 32 points and a +42

1976-77, Bobby Orr was long gone and Smith was a +16 in 58 games.

Did he benefit from playing with Orr? Of course he did.

But he also earned that spot with Orr and did his job with or without the greatest.

 

[shawnmullin]

I do know that anyone can edit wikipedia and that as a result it is a crappy reference.

You really seem to want to fight our D.

Well let me tell you something bub... they're strong so they will FIGHT YOU BACK!

*Takes UFC position*

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I do know that anyone can edit wikipedia and that as a result it is a crappy reference.

While true, on the whole it usually balances out and they do a pretty good job of source checking. But, I dont think their Hockey coverage is strong.

 

[shawnmullin]

While true, on the whole it usually balances out and they do a pretty good job of source checking. But, I dont think their Hockey coverage is strong.

Much of what Van takes from Wiki is attributed to elsewhere however.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

You really seem to want to fight our D.

Well let me tell you something bub... they're strong so they will FIGHT YOU BACK!

*Takes UFC position*

It's not really fair to pick on him though, I mean, Mike Ricter is his starter. Nuff said...

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

You really seem to want to fight our D.

Well let me tell you something bub... they're strong so they will FIGHT YOU BACK!

*Takes UFC position*

What? I would take my defense every time over yours if that is what you are getting at, in fact the only area that I see your team as having a significant advantage is goaltending and coaching. The offenses are pretty much a wash, which is saying something considering how you built your offense very early and traded up a significant amount in order to build that offense. Tikkanen in a second line role is questionable as his discipline will be a concern.

I agree that I took Foote way to early and it is my biggest blunder of the draft.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

It's not really fair to pick on him though, I mean, Mike Ricter is his starter. Nuff said...

The same Mike Richter who was one of the few big game goaltenders of the 90s? Look at his performance in the 1994 playoffs as well as in the World Cup of Hockey, as well as the Olympics in 2002. Having a goaltender who has been able to show up for the big games and win the big games is something that is necessary and I think if you are honest with yourself you will be able to tell that Richter is one of the top 30 goaltenders of all time (although you have Benedict a goaltender who benifited greatly from the rules of the time and the lack of the offensive forward pass - which when taken out resulted in his goals against average doubling, not really what I could consider a great pick when you look at the situation from an objective standpoint, it was a different game, especially from a goaltending standpoint - hell when he started the rules were that he wasn't able to drop to his knees)

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Much of what Van takes from Wiki is attributed to elsewhere however.

Someone elses opinion as to the quality of defensive ability - I mean being excellent isn't something you can quantify,

 

[arrbez]

Great pick. One of the HHOF write-ups states: "As part of summer spectator sports, Marcel Bonin was also known to wrestle bears". Say what you will about Bonin's size... this quote, if true, proves that Bonin was stronger, tougher and crazier than 99% of all NHLers, past and present.

You need to take it with a grain of salt. Bears back in the 1950's were amateur at best, and they usually worked a second job in the offseason instead of training year-round like modern bears do.

 

[arrbez]

While true, on the whole it usually balances out and they do a pretty good job of source checking. But, I dont think their Hockey coverage is strong.

wikipedia speaks nothing but the truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Ondrus&oldid=55371692

 

[raleh]

The same Mike Richter who was one of the few big game goaltenders of the 90s? Look at his performance in the 1994 playoffs as well as in the World Cup of Hockey, as well as the Olympics in 2002. Having a goaltender who has been able to show up for the big games and win the big games is something that is necessary and I think if you are honest with yourself you will be able to tell that Richter is one of the top 30 goaltenders of all time (although you have Benedict a goaltender who benifited greatly from the rules of the time and the lack of the offensive forward pass - which when taken out resulted in his goals against average doubling, not really what I could consider a great pick when you look at the situation from an objective standpoint, it was a different game, especially from a goaltending standpoint - hell when he started the rules were that he wasn't able to drop to his knees)

But if I'm not mistaken, the most common criteria in this draft is the players' dominance (or lack thereof) during their own era. Clint Benedict was the best goalie of his era...by a decent margin from what I can tell. Mike Richter was never, not even for a year, the best goaltender in the world. In fact, I don't even think he was ever in the top 3 for any extended period of time.

I realize my starter is Gerry Cheevers, so I'm setting myself up here, but I'm not comparing my goaltending to anyone elses yet. As far as I'm concerned however, there is a good sized gap between Benedict and Richter with Richter coming out on the losing end.

 

[shawnmullin]

What? I would take my defense every time over yours if that is what you are getting at, in fact the only area that I see your team as having a significant advantage is goaltending and coaching. The offenses are pretty much a wash, which is saying something considering how you built your offense very early and traded up a significant amount in order to build that offense. Tikkanen in a second line role is questionable as his discipline will be a concern.

I agree that I took Foote way to early and it is my biggest blunder of the draft.

Dude I was joking around to ease the vibe.... clearly you took that as "oh he wants me to rip his team"

We're all just having fun here.

 

[arrbez]

Ever since he changed his name, he got real sassy...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

(although you have Benedict a goaltender who benifited greatly from the rules of the time and the lack of the offensive forward pass - which when taken out resulted in his goals against average doubling, not really what I could consider a great pick when you look at the situation from an objective standpoint, it was a different game, especially from a goaltending standpoint - hell when he started the rules were that he wasn't able to drop to his knees)

And you selected first overall a player that couldn't even make the playoffs when he was removed from a cushy situation in Boston.

Judging a player's value based on their final year when they had the 2nd longest career for any goalie in history up to that point, and, held that mark for durability for more than 40 years after, is patently absurd.

Edit: To add to that, granted my data is incomplete, but, based on the players who's age is known at hockeydb.com, Benedict was the oldest player in the NHL during the 29-30 season. Once again, your argument shows a complete lack of logic to the point that it actually hurts my head to think that you may actually believe the words that come out of your mouth and aren't just being contrarian.

 

[shawnmullin]

Someone elses opinion as to the quality of defensive ability - I mean being excellent isn't something you can quantify,

Honestly I don't know why you're doing this if you don't think that someone else's opinion is relevant in quantifying excellence. Clearly much of the all-time draft is based on the opinion of hockey experts and historical writers. If not all we'd have were stats, and any hockey fan worth his salt knows they are only part of the story.

 

[shawnmullin]

And you selected first overall a player that couldn't even make the playoffs when he was removed from a cushy situation in Boston.

Judging a player's value based on their final year when they had the 2nd longest career for any goalie in history up to that point, and, held that mark for durability for more than 40 years after, is patently absurd.

'cmon Nalyd, clearly Benedict is a bum.

I mean, If the game I was playing was dramatically changed near the end of my career I'm sure it would have no impact on me whatsover.

But we all know Orr is the one who is really overrated. I mean cmon, you have one little knee injury and suddenly you can't play?

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

But if I'm not mistaken, the most common criteria in this draft is the players' dominance (or lack thereof) during their own era. Clint Benedict was the best goalie of his era...by a decent margin from what I can tell. Mike Richter was never, not even for a year, the best goaltender in the world. In fact, I don't even think he was ever in the top 3 for any extended period of time.

I realize my starter is Gerry Cheevers, so I'm setting myself up here, but I'm not comparing my goaltending to anyone elses yet. As far as I'm concerned however, there is a good sized gap between Benedict and Richter with Richter coming out on the losing end.

I take more into consideration to determine who was the best goaltender, look at the game as a whole in order to determine who was the best. Benidict played a different game than what is played now, which is what needs to be judged against. When the rules changed his game suffered. How can anyone deny that Benidict played in a completely different era, to the extent of playing a different game. I wouldn't select the best Brandy player as a starter and I wouldn't do the same with a player from before 1929 due to the lack of the forward pass in the offensive zone.

 

[shawnmullin]

I take more into consideration to determine who was the best goaltender, look at the game as a whole in order to determine who was the best. Benidict played a different game than what is played now, which is what needs to be judged against. When the rules changed his game suffered. How can anyone deny that Benidict played in a completely different era, to the extent of playing a different game. I wouldn't select the best Brandy player as a starter and I wouldn't do the same with a player from before 1929 due to the lack of the forward pass in the offensive zone.

You really are missing the spirit of this draft IMO. Obviously every era of the game is vastly different. How do we know how good Joe Malone would be in today's NHL or how good Wayne Gretzky would be in the depression era. That's part of the fun. The guess work, the research, the discussion and the passion involved.

We're not drafting the best players to play in the current NHL... it's an all time draft.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Honestly I don't know why you're doing this if you don't think that someone else's opinion is relevant in quantifying excellence. Clearly much of the all-time draft is based on the opinion of hockey experts and historical writers. If not all we'd have were stats, and any hockey fan worth his salt knows they are only part of the story.

No it isn't based primarly off statistics but to say that someone was excellent and then use wikipedia as a source for that, is not going to fly with me.

And you selected first overall a player that couldn't even make the playoffs when he was removed from a cushy situation in Boston.

Judging a player's value based on their final year when they had the 2nd longest career for any goalie in history up to that point, and, held that mark for durability for more than 40 years after, is patently absurd.

I don't care that it was his last season, the point I am trying to make was that Benidict played what amounts to a different game due to the rules at the time. This isn't something personal it is something I have pointed out time and time again when discussing goaltenders who played before 1929.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

You really are missing the spirit of this draft IMO. Obviously every era of the game is vastly different. How do we know how good Joe Malone would be in today's NHL or how good Wayne Gretzky would be in the depression era. That's part of the fun. The guess work, the research, the discussion and the passion involved.

We're not drafting the best players to play in the current NHL... it's an all time draft.

I am drafting players to play with the current rules, where you can pass forward in the offensive zone. All time players but you need that relative to the current rules.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I don't care that it was his last season, the point I am trying to make was that Benidict played what amounts to a different game due to the rules at the time. This isn't something personal it is something I have pointed out time and time again when discussing goaltenders who played before 1929.

by the same token, could Richter play in an era without forward passing? Or how about pre-slapshot? Or without a mask?

To say a player from a certain era or league is inherently inferior violates the spirit of the draft.

I apologize if I get a bit too heated when discussing this. It just angers me that someone involved in this process could be so dismissive of the ideology behind an all-time draft.

 

[pitseleh]

I take more into consideration to determine who was the best goaltender, look at the game as a whole in order to determine who was the best. Benidict played a different game than what is played now, which is what needs to be judged against. When the rules changed his game suffered. How can anyone deny that Benidict played in a completely different era, to the extent of playing a different game. I wouldn't select the best Brandy player as a starter and I wouldn't do the same with a player from before 1929 due to the lack of the forward pass in the offensive zone.

Yeah, but one season is hardly enough to draw a valid inference. When you consider that every goalie's GAA went up significantly after the rule change (for example the 1930 Vezina winner Tiny Thompson went from 1.15 to 2.19) it was expected that his GAA would go up as well.

The fact that he was no longer the best is much more likely because he was 37, and not because of the rule change.