ATD 2011 Lineup Advice Thread

[BillyShoe1721]

Put Luce on your 3rd line where he belongs and draft one of the bonafide scoring line centers rermaining.

This is probably what I'd do. There are still decent 2nd line centers out there.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Put Luce on your 3rd line where he belongs and draft one of the bonafide scoring line centers rermaining.

Yeah, this is a perfect example of why recreating real lines in an ATD just isn't the best idea. Luce and Ramsay are pure checkers in an ATD, very good to great ones, but checkers, why Gare can work as a checker, he's also too good a scorer to be wasted in the role and drafted too high to be good value. So let Gare be a defensively responsible 2nd line sniper. And let Luce anchor your checking line and you are in good shape.

 

[raleh]

Luce will definitely play with Marshall on the third line. Gonna be flexible with Gare and see where the rest of the draft takes me.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah, this is a perfect example of why recreating real lines in an ATD just isn't the best idea. Luce and Ramsay are pure checkers in an ATD, very good to great ones, but checkers, why Gare can work as a checker, he's also too good a scorer to be wasted in the role and drafted too high to be good value. So let Gare be a defensively responsible 2nd line sniper. And let Luce anchor your checking line and you are in good shape.

If I had all three of them, there is no way I would split them up. They are one of the most efficient and effective lines in NHL history, at both ends of the ice. Gare appears to be the best producer of the three,but it was only because he got PP time and they didn't. at ES they were virtually even.

From 1975-1980, when the three were together:

Luce had 301 ESP
Ramsay had 299 ESP
Gare had 296 ESP

This line went up against top lines for years and outscored them - by a lot - and by a lot more than the French Connection outscored the lines sent out to check them.

Gare is a PP sniper and deserves 2nd unit time at least in the ATD, and isn't really an ATD PK option. Luce and Ramsay, on the other hand, are one of the three best PK duos of all-time and should be on an ATD 1st PK unit. So making them a dedicated 3rd line and having each on the special teams unit that suits them is an efficient way to use them.

(God, I miss having this line)

As far as having Luce and Gare goes, I don't see them as "joined at the hip" as Luce/Ramsay, for example. If you want to split those two up, so be it. Gare has 2nd line upside, Luce doesn't.

 

[Velociraptor]

Few questions about my defense.

Not the strongest bunch, because I haven't really focused on them too much.

Barclay Plager - Sprague Cleghorn
Nikolai Sologubov

I know Plager isn't a first pairing defenseman, but Cleghorn is a #1 defenseman, refer to my bio for any questions about either offensive or defensive incapabilities. Sologubov was an offensive juggernaut in Russia, referred to as "The Russian Bobby Orr" and that's not something I was gonna pass up with Phil Esposito on my team, he produced so much more due to the playmaking abilities Orr had as a defenseman, obviously Sologubov is steps below Orr, but he's known as one of the best Soviet defenseman ever, some people saying he was close in talent to Fetisov.

Should I pair Cleghorn with Sologubov? and what direction should I go with to round out my top-4?

TIA

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Few questions about my defense.

Not the strongest bunch, because I haven't really focused on them too much.

Barclay Plager - Sprague Cleghorn
Nikolai Sologubov

I know Plager isn't a first pairing defenseman, but Cleghorn is a #1 defenseman, refer to my bio for any questions about either offensive or defensive incapabilities. Sologubov was an offensive juggernaut in Russia, referred to as "The Russian Bobby Orr" and that's not something I was gonna pass up with Phil Esposito on my team, he produced so much more due to the playmaking abilities Orr had as a defenseman, obviously Sologubov is steps below Orr, but he's known as one of the best Soviet defenseman ever, some people saying he was close in talent to Fetisov.

Should I pair Cleghorn with Sologubov? and what direction should I go with to round out my top-4?

TIA

Both Clegs and Sologubov are probably best used as the primary puckmover on their pair.

Let Sologubov move the puck from a lower pairing. I would definitely get him a good defensive-minded partner. Sologubov played in late 50s USSR against really poor competition, so it's definitely a question as to how he could handle himself at this level. I would not want him next to Cleghorn, facing the opponent's best lines. Plus Cleg can handle the puck movement for his pair.

 

[Velociraptor]

Sologubov played in late 50s USSR against really poor competition. I would not want him next to Cleghorn, facing the opponent's best lines. Plus Cleg can handle the puck movement for his pair.

Let Sologubov move the puck from a lower pairing. I would definitely get him a good defensive-minded partner.

Note that I'm not a fan of 50s Soviet players in the ATD though, so take my opinion along those lines. Even so, from a chemistry standpoint, both Clegs and Sologubov are probably best used as the primary puckmover on their pair.

Thanks! is Plager a good fit with Cleghorn?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks! is Plager a good fit with Cleghorn?

He's a solid enough fit, I think. Just give Clegs extra minutes on the PP, and you should be okay.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Thoughts on the functionality of this line?

Tony Leswick - Brad Richards - Frank Finnigan

By no means is this a fixed line, I can easily adjust and move guys around right now, Leswick can play both wings on any line, and Finnigan can play RW on either the 2nd or 3rd line. I just want to get a bit of a feeler so that I can react accordingly as the draft moves forward. Respectful, constructive, well-thought out feedback is, as always, very much appreciated.

 

[jarek]

If that's a second line, it certainly won't get scored on too often. However, I'm not convinced that it's up to snuff offensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thoughts on the functionality of this line?

Tony Leswick - Brad Richards - Frank Finnigan

By no means is this a fixed line, I can easily adjust and move guys around right now, Leswick can play both wings on any line, and Finnigan can play RW on either the 2nd or 3rd line. I just want to get a bit of a feeler so that I can react accordingly as the draft moves forward. Respectful, constructive, well-thought out feedback is, as always, very much appreciated.

I'm just not sure what kind of line it's supposed to be. The wings make it look like a checking line, but Richards is not a defensive-minded center by any means.

I think Leswick or Finnigan (especially Finnigan) can chip in enough offense to be the 3rd best member of a two-way scoring line if need be. And obviously both are excellent checkers.

The way you have it now, you are wasting some of Richards' offense with those wings and wasting some of the defensive of the wings with Richards there.

I realize that checking lines often include a single more offensive-minded player to take advantage of the counterattack, but that player is rarely if ever the center.

 

[Evil Sather]

regarding the Richards line, I only like that formation if your plan is to have a New Jersey Devils style interchangable parts forward corps where you just have wave after wave of defensively responsible grinders with 1 or 2 random offensive guys sprinkled in, with the appropriate coach.

Generally speaking most peoples approach is to max out the 1st and checking lines and fill in the 2nd scoring line much later.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

regarding the Richards line, I only like that formation if your plan is to have a New Jersey Devils style interchangable parts forward corps where you just have wave after wave of defensively responsible grinders with 1 or 2 random offensive guys sprinkled in, with the appropriate coach.

Generally speaking most peoples approach is to max out the 1st and checking lines and fill in the 2nd scoring line much later.

Yup, you got it. That's not exactly it, but something generally similar. And that's why I think the lines will work pretty well in a playoff series when I pitch them in context. I knew it would seem bizarre to some people (TDMM), but at the end of the day I think most people are just naturally a bit too fixed on how a line looks on paper in a fantasy draft, as opposed to how a line will simply function from shift to shift in real life. I'm pretty confident that when it's all said and done, the bigger picture will work fine.

The line is definitely going to be weaker offensively, I've known that was going to be the case for a long time (although I don't want to over-state that before taking a serious look at Finnigan's offensive abilities and the calibre of other second lines, because I have a feeling they are going to be weaker than I'm expecting.

I have a habit of looking 4 to 5 selections ahead before making each pick, and at pick 196, I knew that if I took Thomson, I would have to take Mortson with pick 205, and then another defenseman in the 200s to play with Tremblay, and that my second line players wouldn't start being picked until the 300s. So I basically weighed my options, and made the decision to sacrifice a more offensively dominant second line, for a strong second defensive pairing (the gold dust twins). You can't have everything.

 

[jarek]

Well, like I said, for what it's worth, Finnigan was regularly referred to as a guy counted on as a scorer in newspaper articles. I strongly suggest doing a google news search on him, his offensive abilities (stick handling, etc.), were often very much praised.

I was going to use Finnigan in a 2nd line role myself before I took Martinec. I think he fits. I'm more sold on him than Leswick, in any event.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Any thoughts on who should play LW with Frank McGee and Ken Hodge? McGee can serve as the playmaker or the trigger man, which gives me some flexibility. Hodge can work the corners, but isn't consistently physical. I'm thinking a two-way guy with physicality. A guy like that would give me two defensively responsible guys on the line(McGee was said to be a good back checker).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

regarding the Richards line, I only like that formation if your plan is to have a New Jersey Devils style interchangable parts forward corps where you just have wave after wave of defensively responsible grinders with 1 or 2 random offensive guys sprinkled in, with the appropriate coach.

Generally speaking most peoples approach is to max out the 1st and checking lines and fill in the 2nd scoring line much later.

That NJ Devils team had one of the 2 best defensive corps in the league (along with Detroit). Combining goaltending and defense, they had a huge edge against pretty much every opponent at the backend, something you wouldn't get in the ATD, unless you spent your first 3 picks and 4 of your first 5 on defense and goaltending... and nobody else did.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Any thoughts on who should play LW with Frank McGee and Ken Hodge? McGee can serve as the playmaker or the trigger man, which gives me some flexibility. Hodge can work the corners, but isn't consistently physical. I'm thinking a two-way guy with physicality. A guy like that would give me two defensively responsible guys on the line(McGee was said to be a good back checker).

I think any type of left wing could work on that line, so long as he isn't completely devoid of passing ability (since no left wings left are going to supply as much goalscoring as McGee).

 

[Dreakmur]

Yes Dreak, post your whole PP units here if you want more advice. Bourque-Bathgate is absolutely lethal, but I agree that you don't want to overload your points so much than the PKers can safely ignore the guys down low.

It's been a while, but now that I have a few more players, I can do something more reaasonable.

Ray Bourque will definately be on the point and Norm Ullman will definately play up front. Andy Bathgate will be on the ice, but not sure where to use him yet.

Alf Smith, I think, is more suited to be a 2nd PP guy. I'd like to keep him off the 1st unit.

Tommy Dunderdale would be an adequate skilled guy, but I would like to have him on the 2nd unit if possible.

Hod Stuart, even though we don't know anything about how hard he shot, would make a pretty good powerplay QB. The problem is Bourque is already the QB.

Pat Egan had one of the heaviest shots of his era, so he can defiantely be a shooter from the point.


As of right now, I'm leaning towards Bathgate going up front.

Dunderdale - Ullman - Bathgate
Bourque - Egan​

Since powerplay minutes are pretty easy to handle, I was thinking of using Bathgate on the point for the 2nd unit with Hod Stuart. Would anyone think that is too much?

 

[Dreakmur]

Any thoughts on who should play LW with Frank McGee and Ken Hodge? McGee can serve as the playmaker or the trigger man, which gives me some flexibility. Hodge can work the corners, but isn't consistently physical. I'm thinking a two-way guy with physicality. A guy like that would give me two defensively responsible guys on the line(McGee was said to be a good back checker).

According to the SIHR study, McGee was not a good playmaker.

 

[jarek]

It's been a while, but now that I have a few more players, I can do something more reaasonable.

Ray Bourque will definately be on the point and Norm Ullman will definately play up front. Andy Bathgate will be on the ice, but not sure where to use him yet.

Alf Smith, I think, is more suited to be a 2nd PP guy. I'd like to keep him off the 1st unit.

Tommy Dunderdale would be an adequate skilled guy, but I would like to have him on the 2nd unit if possible.

Hod Stuart, even though we don't know anything about how hard he shot, would make a pretty good powerplay QB. The problem is Bourque is already the QB.

Pat Egan had one of the heaviest shots of his era, so he can defiantely be a shooter from the point.


As of right now, I'm leaning towards Bathgate going up front.

Dunderdale - Ullman - Bathgate
Bourque - Egan​

Since powerplay minutes are pretty easy to handle, I was thinking of using Bathgate on the point for the 2nd unit with Hod Stuart. Would anyone think that is too much?

Personally, I would make him the right point man on both PP's with one instruction: SHOOT THAT ****ING PUCK!!! The guy had an absolute LASER and it was one of the hardest shots of his era. Go find another bum to put on that wing, because Bathgate is one of the best pointmen in this draft.

 

[Sturminator]

Dunderdale - Ullman - Bathgate
Bourque - Egan​

At the very least, switch Ullman and Dunderdale. I can't really buy Dunderdale as a playmaker along the halfboards, while Ullman could fulfill that role. Dunderdale needs to be your net guy. Not in love with Egan on a 1st unit powerplay, but if you insist on placing Bathgate down low, then I guess he's your best bet. I really think you should just find another forward and move Andy back to the point.

 

[markrander87]

Thoughts on my (Tenative) Powerplay:

Olmstead-Sittler-Litzenberger
Robinson-Geoffrion

 

[Dreakmur]

Thoughts on my (Tenative) Powerplay:

Olmstead-Sutter-Litzenberger
Robinson-Geoffrion

And I thought my points were overloaded compared to my forwards

 

[Dreakmur]

At the very least, switch Ullman and Dunderdale. I can't really buy Dunderdale as a playmaker along the halfboards, while Ullman could fulfill that role. Dunderdale needs to be your net guy. Not in love with Egan on a 1st unit powerplay, but if you insist on placing Bathgate down low, then I guess he's your best bet. I really think you should just find another forward and move Andy back to the point.

Why does the left winger need to be a playmaker? I've got Bourque, Bathgate, and Ullman out there, and they can all dish the puck pretty well.

The reason I move Bathgate down low is to give me somebody to run the down low plays. Bourque can already run everything at the top, so I need some big-time skill at the bottom. Most plays will start with either of those two.

Dunderdale is mostly being used as a slot presence for now. He's got good hands and good finish.

In such a large draft, I won't be surprised if Egan is a pretty decent secondary point man. He's got pretty strong offensive credentials as well as one of the harder shots in the draft.

 

[markrander87]

And I thought my points were overloaded compared to my forwards

Typo, the center is Darryl Sittler. Yes Darryl Sittler who was 4th in the 70's in PP Goals. By far the best PP Forward on either of our teams if Bathgate is playing the point.


Nice try though