All Time Draft First Round - Aurora Tigers @ Barrie Flyers

[arrbez]

Anyways, I feel I have a significant advantage in net, which will be huge in such an evenly-matched series.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The 1980 Olympics are not nearly as bad as advertized for Tretiak. Hell, he didn't even take the loss. The game was tied when he left. The goals weren't that bad. And to this day, many of the Soviet players still have no idea why Tretiak was pulled.

The two goals were awful.

The first was an unscreened slapsho from 45-50. A nice shot, but not a rocket and not perfectly placed, beat him clean.

The second was a dump from center ice that he carelessly misplayed into a gimme rebound for Mark Johnson to deposit in to the net at the buzzer.

Also Myshkin was no slouch, he was the one in goal when the Soviets smoked the NHL squad 6-0 in the finale of the Challenger Cup a few months previous.

 

[arrbez]

The first goal actually was a pretty good shot from the top of the circle, if you watch the replay. Not unstoppable, but nowhere near terrible.

The second I'll give you. A careless rebound (and both defencemen phoned it in, allowing Johnson to beat them to the puck when he had no business doing so).

But I think the most important point is this: Why are we judging a guy based on 1 period of a game that you would most likely write off as meaningless if the Soviets had won? I don't suppose you'd be willing to give him any credit for posting a 0.67 GAA en route to gold in the following Olympics?

Ken Dryden was bad in a number of crucially important international games. He was terrible in the first game of the Summit Series, but he redeemed himself. He was badly outplayed by Tretiak again in the New Years eve game in 1975, but he's proven that a few bad games does not a goaltender make. Tretiak had a bad period in a 2nd-rate international tournament, and he's chopped liver? How about the next year when he was MVP of a best-on-best tournament?

In terms of the calibre of the tournament, the 1980 Olympics were no different than the 72, 76, or 84 Olympics, all of which he won. Not really any different than the countless World Championships either. If they had lost to Czechoslovakia instead of the states, we're probably not even talking about this. This is just a case of a guy being in a no-win situation. If he plays great, it means nothing. If he's mediocre for one friggin' period, it's a surefire sign that he's garbage. I can remember Roy and Brodeur letting in worse goals than these at crucial times deep in the playoffs, but I don't judge them exclusively on that basis.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The first goal actually was a pretty good shot from the top of the circle, if you watch the replay. Not unstoppable, but nowhere near terrible.

The second I'll give you. A careless rebound (and both defencemen phoned it in, allowing Johnson to beat them to the puck when he had no business doing so).

But I think the most important point is this: Why are we judging a guy based on 1 period of a game that you would most likely write off as meaningless if the Soviets had won? I don't suppose you'd be willing to give him any credit for posting a 0.67 GAA en route to gold in the following Olympics?

Ken Dryden was bad in a number of crucially important international games. He was terrible in the first game of the Summit Series, but he redeemed himself. He was badly outplayed by Tretiak again in the New Years eve game in 1975, but he's proven that a few bad games does not a goaltender make. Tretiak had a bad period in a 2nd-rate international tournament, and he's chopped liver? How about the next year when he was MVP of a best-on-best tournament?

In terms of the calibre of the tournament, the 1980 Olympics were no different than the 72, 76, or 84 Olympics, all of which he won. Not really any different than the countless World Championships either. If they had lost to Czechoslovakia instead of the states, we're probably not even talking about this. This is just a case of a guy being in a no-win situation. If he plays great, it means nothing. If he's mediocre for one friggin' period, it's a surefire sign that he's garbage. I can remember Roy and Brodeur letting in worse goals than these at crucial times deep in the playoffs, but I don't judge them exclusively on that basis.

I don't judge him exclusively on that game alone.

My issue with tretiak is this:

How many games did he play in his career, where his team wasn't a prohibitive favorite ???

The way the Soviet league was set-up his team was always ridiculously loaded. In the worlds and Olympics there were a bunch of 3rd rate teams, other than the Czecshoslovakians.

Other than games against the Czechs, the Summitt Series, and Canada Cups he team was always a giant favorite.

It boils down to about 30-50 games to truly juge how good he was, and IMO that just isn't enough.

 

[arrbez]

How about how he compares to other great Soviet players. Fetisov's best years were spent in the same situation. Same with Kharlamov, Larionov, Makarov, etc. And yet we acknowledge that these players were great, because they were the best players for a hockey power that was at worst a very close second to Canada during the communist era.

Tretiak has more MVP nods than any of the players mentioned. You mentioned that Myshkin was a great goalie. Tretiak was the goalie selected to the Soviet Allstar squad every year of Myshkin's career untill he retired.

Do we know for sure how he would fare in the NHL? No. But I think we can make a reasonable guess. Fetisov and Larionov didn't go as high as they did based solely on their NHL careers. They were good in the NHL, but not great. We assume that being the greatest Soviet defender of his era equates Fetisov with being one of the greatest defenders of that era, period. The same should apply with Tretiak. It's just common sense.

 

[pappyline]

So anyways, here's my (slightly partial ) take on this:

And here is my 2 cents worth-completely impartial

Coach:
I feel I have the distinct edge in terms of coaching. Tommy Ivan engineered a dynasty in Detroit, and has much more success than Bob Johnson at the pro level. I have Ivan rated somewhere between 5-7 in terms of the top coaches in league history, which is a clear step up from Badger Bob. I feel Ivan's balanced style and subtly authoritative manner are also perfect fits for my squad. Ivan was a master of line-juggling, and because of this I've created a versatile 4th line that can be shuffled throughout the rest of the lineup if need be.

I will give you the edge here. Ivan has the better record. However Badger Bob had more personality and was more of a "players coach"


Goaltending:
What always seems to be the most important position come playoff time? Goaltending. I feel I have not only the better starter, but the better backup as well. I have Tretiak rated in the second tier of goaltenders with your Parent, Broda, etc. I have Worsely rated much later than that. He's a solid #1, but I wouldn't rate him in the top half of this draft like I do Tretiak.

IMO, Gump is at worst Tretiak's equal. I think you over estimate Tretiak. I think both are below the second tier of goalies. Tretiak never played in the NHL and was always on a very good team. There were times when he played well under pressure and times when he did not. Gump was always a good goalie even when he played on those bad Ranger teams,

Line 1:
I believe Barrie has the better top line, although it's close. Bentley-Jackson is an excellent combo. Clapper brings a lot of size and while he's an alltime great player, I'm not sure he was an alltime great RW. He was a better defenceman, from what I gather. I feel Bobrov is the best pure goalscorer here, but Lafontaine is a definite step down from Bentley as a playmaking centre. Balderis is somewhat of an enigma, even for me. He was one of the highest scoring Soviet players of his era, and performed well when given the chance against the world's best, but never got a whole lot of exposure in North America.

I don't think this one is even close. My first line is one of the best in the draft. Both Clapper & Jackson were big men in their day and Bentley is one of the most skilled and artistic players ever to lace them up. I have an aggressive finese center playing between two speedy power forwards. Clapper was equally good at RW or defense & was an all star at both positions. I don't think Lafontaine rates as a first line center in an all time draft. I don't know that much about Bobrov & Balderis. They are good picks but maybe more at the second line level.

Line 2:
Although I consider my top 2 lines to be 1A and 1B, I guess this is my second. I feel this is my team's biggest advantage in this series. While both lines have a duo with proven chemistry, only one of those duo's excelled at the NHL level. Hedberg and Nilsson dominated the freewheeling WHA, but were not the same players when they entered the NHL still in their prime (28 and 29 years old, respectively). Hedberg's play dropped to under a PPG in the highest scoring era in NHL history. Nilsson fared a bit better, but was missing 20+ games a year due to injury. By contrast, the Lindros-Leclair duo dominated the NHL for a number of years. Lindros was the total package and among the best in the world during the 90's, and from 1995-2000 only Jagr scored more goals than Leclair (1 more, to be exact). I like my chances with Roenick vs. Simmer as well, as I feel JR is the more versatile player, and has the speed to really make this line dangerous. Am I a homer? Perhaps. But I feel that if these two lines were matched up together, mine would absolutely tee off on Barrie's.

I think your first 2 lines are actually 2A & 2B, not !A & !B. St, Clair, lindros & Roenick is a very good line. The early Lindros especially was one of the most dominate players in the history of the game. However, I can hardly wait for Flaman to catch him with his head down. I think you under estimate Hedberg & Nilsson. Sure their stats fell off when they went to NY but they were not allowed to free wheel in NY (pity, as they were great to watch in that mode) and did not have a LW of the calibre of Hull or even Simmer. I think we are pretty even here. If Lindros is healthy & at his best, you might have a slight edge.

Line 3:
As someone mentioned before, both lines have a couple of defensive aces with a two-way capable offensive player. While Hlinka may be the best offensive player, Barrie's trio may bring more offense as a whole. I feel Barrie's line brings more physical play, while mine brings more speed. From my perspective, I think Backstrom and Ellis's exceptional speed will be key in containing shifty little Max Bentley.

I think we both have good two way lines here but mine is better (why be humble). Mohns had a very successful career & IMO was very underrated. In fact all 3 of these guys don't get the credit they deserve. Sloan was an all star and won cups with both Toronto & Chicago.Litz was also an all star and at his peak was one of the best half dozen forwards in the league. If he hadn't been injured in an auto accident at his peak in 1960, he may have had a HOF career. He did come back to captain the Hawks to the 61 cup & was a solid role player on Toronto's 3 following three cup wins.

[Line 4:
These lines bring different elements to the table. Barrie's line is very solid and versatile, and would probably excell more than mine would playing regular minutes. All 3 guys bring grit, respectable offense, and winning pedigrees. I saw my 4th line as an opportunity to build a "spark" line. While they won't get a ton of minutes, they're the type of players who can turn a game around. I feel that just having Probert dressed adds a dimension of accountability to my squad that many lack. As a player, I feel he's good enough not to hurt me in a limited role. Unlike most players in his weight class, he could skate and actually had a decent scoring touch. Nolan is a prototypical power-forward, who can cause havoc in the corners and in front of the net. I like Nolan also as a spare part, who could move onto either of the top-2 lines if needed. I feel Linseman is the key to this line. He's arguably the biggest sh*t disturber in NHL history, and has the ability to take opposing players off their games. On top of that, he was a very respectable playmaking centre who lead his team in scoring on a couple of occaisions. The playoffs were where he really shone though. He's over a PPG in his playoff career, and he lead his teams in playoff scoring 5 times, with very impressive totals of 25, 22, and 20. The big concern with my 4th line is penalty trouble, which is why they'll be given limited minutes on most nights.

I think these lines are fairly close. Linseman is an great agitator (wasn't his nickname the Rat). Probert was tough & could score. I would love to see him and flaman go toe to toe. I have Nester & Wilson who wre good defensively & could score 15-20 a year. Mackell is my secret weapon who was a great playoff performer. I will probably use this line quite a bit. (my so called checking line)



Defence Pairing 1:
I took Bourque with my first pick, and seeing how fast defensemen flew off the board, I'm really happy with how that worked out. I would imagine Pappyline is equally happy with Harvey. I feel that having a big stud on the blueline gives you a lot of options in terms of building a defense corps. Harvey-Flaman is a GREAT first pairing who bring a ton of toughness and offence. I rate Harvey ahead of Bourque, but the gap is small. Harvey's 7 Norris's in 8 years can't be ignored. While Bourque "only" won it 5 times, he was a finalist on 9 other occaisions. Both were just simply the defining rearguards of their era. Sologubov and Flaman are both good foils for their respective partners. Bourque's ridiculously steady play allows Sologubov to rush the puck and throw his weight around, while Flaman's defensive prowess allows Harvey to quarterback the offence.

I pretty much agree with this analysis.

Defence Pairing 2:
I give myself the edge on the second pairing. I feel Goodfellow is the best of the four, while Coulter is at the very least on par with the Vasko and Colville (he has as many allstar selections as the two of them combined). My pairing has a Hart trophy, as well as 6 allstar team selections to Barrie's 3, for what it's worth. I feel Coulter's bruising defensive style is the perfect match for Goodfellow, who was among the leagues higher scoring forwards early in his career prior to moving to the backend.

You may have a slight edge but it is close

Defence Pairing 3:
The 3rd pairing IMO just needed to be solid, which is what mine is. Ramage brings some nice size and grit, and Numminen is just a solid, solid player. Both have good size (6'2), can play special teams, and bring offense to the table as well. Barrie's is much the same. While Sjoberg was tiny, he wasn't a total pushover physically, and was very good offensively. Neilson is an excellent partner for him, bringing size and a bit of offence as well. I feel his 3rd pairing will creat more offense, while mine will be better in their own zone.

agree. it is pretty even. I actually thought of pairing Neilson with Harvey as they played together Nielsons rookie season.


While some matchups would have been disastrous for my team, I feel this is one I can win. Both teams are very evenly matched, but I feel I have the bigger edge in certain departments than can make up for the smaller edges Barrie has in others.

Yes ,this is a good match up. I think what puts me over the top is my first line, Harvey over Bourque & the vesatility of my team.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Yes ,this is a good match up. I think what puts me over the top is my first line, Harvey over Bourque & the vesatility of my team.

I won't spoil the fun or give the results, but I will let you know that this was the closest match-up of any of the first round series.



In regards to Aurora's 4th line ... Linseman is probably the only 4th line center in the ATD with 3 20 point playoff seasons under his belt.

 

[pappyline]

I won't spoil the fun or give the results, but I will let you know that this was the closest match-up of any of the first round series.



In regards to Aurora's 4th line ... Linseman is probably the only 4th line center in the ATD with 3 20 point playoff seasons under his belt.

You mean the votes are already in & my analysis was all for naught. I just got back from 3 weeks in France and lost touch with what stage this was at.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

You mean the votes are already in & my analysis was all for naught. I just got back from 3 weeks in France and lost touch with what stage this was at.

Yes, the voting for round one concluded early this morning. The authors should be posting the results within the next day or two.

Murphy has started posting some of the results from the Don Cherry Division.

Hope you had a good time in France.

 

[kruezer]

Without a doubt the closest series of them all, I am really interested to see how this turns out.