ATD 2020 Draft Summary

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
From Barry's bio:
"Marty Barry, Larry Aurie, and Herb Lewis give the Red Wings one of the best forward lines in the game. It is not only a high scoring array, but one of the finest defensive combinations".
"Barry, big and strong and a hard worker, is as fine a playmaker as he is a defensive player".

From Foyston's bios:
"Foyston's work on offense and defence, his checking, skating, and shooting were of a class that fully justified his selection as the most valuable player in Pacific coast hockey".
"He shoots well and checks cleanly and hard".
"one of the best all-around hockeyists."
"Foyston was fast as a streak and his back checking and all round playing featured the game".
"In Foyston, Aurie and Johnny Sheppard, Detroit has a hook-checking barrier in front of their main defence that is hard to beat".

So, it seams to me, that Foyston was pretty good defensively and Barry was at least defensively responsible. I think, that's enough for the 1st line.

Barry wasn't much of a defensive guy on the whole. Aurie and Lewis were more relevant as back checkers. Foyston is the best of the group, but I'd probably label him as responsible at best. Bathgate was, AFAIK, pretty weak (as were many Rangers from the 50's and 60's). Those Ranger squads bled goals against.

I think it's a fantastic offensive group (talent and fit), I simply think it will probably give up more than the league average as far as top lines go in the goals against department. From a purely offensive fit standpoint, the line is great. :)
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
From Barry's bio:
"Marty Barry, Larry Aurie, and Herb Lewis give the Red Wings one of the best forward lines in the game. It is not only a high scoring array, but one of the finest defensive combinations".
"Barry, big and strong and a hard worker, is as fine a playmaker as he is a defensive player".

From Foyston's bios:
"Foyston's work on offense and defence, his checking, skating, and shooting were of a class that fully justified his selection as the most valuable player in Pacific coast hockey".
"He shoots well and checks cleanly and hard".
"one of the best all-around hockeyists."
"Foyston was fast as a streak and his back checking and all round playing featured the game".
"In Foyston, Aurie and Johnny Sheppard, Detroit has a hook-checking barrier in front of their main defence that is hard to beat".

So, it seams to me, that Foyston was pretty good defensively and Barry was at least defensively responsible. I think, that's enough for the 1st line.
Yep. Foyston and Barry have what it takes to make the line solid and support Andy Bathgate's shenanigans.

I guess it's not surprising we've seen this one before. It's an excellent combination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Namba 17

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
A couple of newspaper clippings isn't enough evidence IMO, but that's just me. And as a scoring line in a vacuum, the line is excellent.

One of the biggest fallacies of the ATD is that finding 2-3 quotes from a single newspaper somehow transforms 06 and prior era players as more than they were. It's one of the reasons some from these era's are overrated. Quotes replace video evidence and the amount of material needed to label someone as bad, average, good, etc is not always consistent.

It takes a lot of time, effort and source materials to change a narrative.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
A couple of newspaper clippings isn't enough evidence IMO, but that's just me. And as a scoring line in a vacuum, the line is excellent.

One of the biggest fallacies of the ATD is that finding 2-3 quotes from a single newspaper somehow transforms 06 and prior era players as more than they were. It's one of the reasons some from these era's are overrated. Quotes replace video evidence and the amount of material needed to label someone as bad, average, good, etc is not always consistent.

It takes a lot of time, effort and source materials to change a narrative.

I have no opinion on Foyston and Barry in particular, but I have to agree with the bolded. It used to be OK to find a few quotes and defend a player's defensive abilities with them, but since then we all gained experience going through newspapers day by day, game by game, realizing that such quotes exist for virtually every player, so the standards were imperceptibly raised along the way.

What I find more important is:

1) How consistently the player is praised for attribute X or Y (consistency/volume of quotes)
2) Comparative quotes (e.g. "Mr.X is better than Mr.Y")
3) Precise quotes (e.g. "Mr.X covered Mr.Y all game long")
4) General quotes not related to one single game (e.g. "Mr.X is one of the best backchecker in the league")
5) What other players/coaches/GMs thought about the player (but those also subjected to 1-4)

Still, sometimes you don't have time to create an enormous biography, so you're stuck with a few random pieces of the puzzle. I wouldn't be too severe neither.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

Namba 17

Registered User
May 9, 2011
1,635
542
A couple of newspaper clippings isn't enough evidence IMO, but that's just me.
One of the biggest fallacies of the ATD is that finding 2-3 quotes from a single newspaper somehow transforms 06 and prior era players as more than they were. It's one of the reasons some from these era's are overrated.
It takes a lot of time, effort and source materials to change a narrative.
It's not just quotes, it's their analysis too. For Barry there are two quotes about his defensive play - one where he lists along with his partners and other, where he named great defensive player. Other quotes or articles prize his offence. So, he was much more valuable offensively, than defensively and we can't say that he was great defensive player, based on one quote only. But was he a liability as, say, Bathgate? First, we can't find a word that he was irresponsible, or lazy or didn't like to play defense. Second - look at Lewis - Barry - Aurie line's description. They all listed at the same sentence - their whole line was "the finest defensive combinations". Both Aurie and Lewis were good defensive players - there are a lot of evidences and their backchecking is always underlined when they talk about Aurie and Lewis. Barry isn't prized that much. But when they talk about their line, Barry is listed alongside his teammates - they don't talk, that it were Lewis and Aurie, who have to checkback to cover Barry. No, all of them formed fine defensive combination. So, they all played defense, but both Lewis and Aurie were clearly better backcheckers.
In other quote Barry was called great defensive player.
Combine this and we receive, that he did played defense and was adequate, while playing defense, but it was not his strongest part, in other words, he was defensively responsible and know how to play defense.

For Foyston it is easier. There are a lot of quotes, that prize his defense. So, he was good defensively, but that was not his strongest part, because there are much more quotes about his offense . "Pretty good" seems to be the right estimation. Also, don't forget, that Foyston was in conversation about the mist complete player of his time. Player who was poor defensively wouldn't be discussed as "the most complete".
 

Namba 17

Registered User
May 9, 2011
1,635
542
I have no opinion on Foyston and Barry in particular, but I have to agree with the bolded. It used to be OK to find a few quotes and defend a player's defensive abilities with them, but since then we all gained experience going through newspapers day by day, game by game, realizing that such quotes exist for virtually every player, so the standards were imperceptibly raised along the way.

What I find more important is:

1) How consistently the player is praised for attribute X or Y (consistency/volume of quotes)
2) Comparative quotes (e.g. "Mr.X is better than Mr.Y")
3) Precise quotes (e.g. "Mr.X covered Mr.Y all game long")
4) General quotes not related to one single game (e.g. "Mr.X is one of the best backchecker in the league")
5) What other players/coaches/GMs thought about the player (but those also subjected to 1-4)

Still, sometimes you don't have time to create an enormous biography, so you're stuck with a few random pieces of the puzzle. I wouldn't be too severe neither.
When I wrote my answer I didn't see this :)
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
This makes absolutely, unequivocally, no sense.

One, Dean Prentice (the one NOT in the HOF) doesn't exactly have a sterling resume to make that claim and two, more importantly, chemistry should matter in hockey, A LOT. More so than many other sports.

But let's dig deeper.

In a 40 team draft Cook went 273.

Too high? Maybe very slightly. Looking at the past draft history, no, he wasn't really THAT over drafted. Certainly not enough to warrant labeling the line "worst assembled in the draft" which is a slap in the face to the entire group and the GM who put it together without the ability to trade. I'm not deducting points for "meta-value and mathematical shenanigans" in this case and honestly, the pick wasn't some sort of egregious reach. The line has a higher end defensive presence at C who happens to be an elite passer of the puck and big game player. You have one of the best pure goal scorers in history and high end physical presence. You have a player who could and did do the glue work for the line.

Past draft history:

2019 - 306 (20 teams)
2018 - 304 (24)
2017 - 216 (25)
2016 - 216 (26)
2015 - 185 (32)
2014 - 206 (28)
2013 - 199 (32)
2012 - 221 (32)
2011 - 210 (40)

Should he ideally go in the 300's in a draft this size? Yeah, probably so. He was over drafted in the past, but again, there seems to be no justification for shitting on one of the most prolific real life trios of all time.
Sure, let's talk about Bun Cook, who is probably one of the most overrated players in the ATD at this point. Is this a "slap in the face" to anyone? I dunno. Asking for "worst" picks/units/etc. sorta invites these sorts of conversations, does it not? Anyway...on to Bun Cook.

What do we really think of Bun Cook? VsX tells us that he's a productive 3rd wheel type; Bunny's 7-year score of 76.3 puts him only slightly behind teammate Cecil Dillon [at 78.1], and a bit ahead of fellow LWs Corey Perry and Herbie Lewis [both at 75]. Bun Cook looks good as a scorer! Alas, Bun Cook is a good example of why we cannot be slavishly devoted to VsX as a tool for making scoring comparisons. Skating, for your entire career, as the 3rd best player on a line with two top-50 all time players is an enormous advantage. It's impossible to quantify exactly how this affected Bun's scoring, but we can hazard a guess by isolating the VsX effect of being temporarily placed on an all-time great line.

The careers of Ken Mosdell and Vic Hadfield are quite illustrative, as both players spent discrete seasons playing on great lines (with Olmstead - Richard and Ratelle - Gilbert, respectively), but most of their careers were spent skating on less illustrious units. So we can kinda isolate the VsX effect of skating with these linemates by comparing scoring levels in the years spend on and off of these lines.

Mosdell's career is pretty easy to parse. His peak was clearly from 48-49 to 55-56. He skated two seasons on the 1st line with Rocket, and six seasons on lower lines (one of which, 51-52, we throw out for VsX reasons, as Mosdell was injured).
Mosdell off the Richard line VsX scores: 48, 39, 47, 31, 42; average 41.4
Mosdell on the Richard line VsX scores: 75, 73; average 74​

Vic Hadfield's career is just a bit harder to parse because the second season in which he skated with Ratelle - Gilbert was cut a bit short due to injury (we "give" Hadfield 77 points in 78 games in 72-73 - as opposed to his actual 62 in 63 - in order to normalize his VsX score for that season). His peak is from 68-69 to 75-76.
Hadfield off the GAG line VsX scores: 62, 63, 52, 57, 55; average 57.8
Hadfield on the GAG line VsX scores: 97, 77; average 87
This is obviously a quite rough-and-ready approximation of the effect of playing with all-time great linemates, but it's also a fairly conservative one. Frank Boucher + Bill Cook's combined 7-year VsX score is 191.1, considerably higher than that of Richard + Olmstead [178.3] and Ratelle + Gilbert [172.7]. So, there's a pretty good argument that Bun Cook got more help from his linemates than either Hadfield or Mosdell got in even their best seasons.

But anyway...both Vic Hadfield and Kenny Mosdell experienced a bump of about 30 points in VsX production while placed on great lines. In fact, Mosdell's VsX values on the Richard line end up looking a lot like Bun's career VsX value [74 vs. 76.3]. So, the question becomes...if you take Bun Cook off of the Bread Line and put him on some checking unit, does his VsX production fall into the 40s like Mosdell? I think the likely answer to that question is yes.

As far as Bun's intangibles go...meh. I have researched those old Rangers teams extensively, and never came away from reading first-hand accounts of their exploits feeling like Bun Cook had much star power, at all. Descriptions of his grit and his defensive role on the line almost all come from secondary "retrospective" sources of at least somewhat questionable value. Contemporary sources seem to have mostly ignored Bun. This troubles me. Also, he was clearly not that important as a glue guy on the line, as he wasn't as good as Frank Boucher defensively, or as fierce as his brother Bill physically. Even as a glue guy, he played a secondary role.

Guys in Bun's position have largely seen their ATD draft positions drop over the years. Guys like Clark Gillies, Ken Hodge, Kevin Stevens and Steve Shutt used to get drafted higher than they do today, but have seen their draft positions slip as the group has gotten wise to the fact that they were really just secondary players in the shadows of greats. For some reason, Bun's draft stock hasn't slipped that much. I think I'd draft him in more the Doan/Liba/Mayorov range of left wingers. I think he's that overrated, yeah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Sure, let's talk about Bun Cook, who is probably one of the most overrated players in the ATD at this point. Is this a "slap in the face" to anyone? I dunno. Asking for "worst" picks/units/etc. sorta invites these sorts of conversations, does it not? Anyway...on to Bun Cook.

What do we really think of Bun Cook? VsX tells us that he's a productive 3rd wheel type; Bunny's 7-year score of 76.3 puts him only slightly behind teammate Cecil Dillon [at 78.1], and a bit ahead of fellow LWs Corey Perry and Herbie Lewis [both at 75]. Bun Cook looks good as a scorer! Alas, Bun Cook is a good example of why we cannot be slavishly devoted to VsX as a tool for making scoring comparisons. Skating, for your entire career, as the 3rd best player on a line with two top-50 all time players is an enormous advantage. It's impossible to quantify exactly how this affected Bun's scoring, but we can hazard a guess by isolating the VsX effect of being temporarily placed on an all-time great line.

The careers of Ken Mosdell and Vic Hadfield are quite illustrative, as both players spent discrete seasons playing on great lines (with Olmstead - Richard and Ratelle - Gilbert, respectively), but most of their careers were spent skating on less illustrious units. So we can kinda isolate the VsX effect of skating with these linemates by comparing scoring levels in the years spend on and off of these lines.

Mosdell's career is pretty easy to parse. His peak was clearly from 48-49 to 55-56. He skated two seasons on the 1st line with Rocket, and six seasons on lower lines (one of which, 51-52, we throw out for VsX reasons, as Mosdell was injured).
Mosdell off the Richard line VsX scores: 48, 39, 47, 31, 42; average 41.4
Mosdell on the Richard line VsX scores: 75, 73; average 74​

Vic Hadfield's career is just a bit harder to parse because the second season in which he skated with Ratelle - Gilbert was cut a bit short due to injury (we "give" Hadfield 77 points in 78 games in 72-73 - as opposed to his actual 62 in 63 - in order to normalize his VsX score for that season). His peak is from 68-69 to 75-76.
Hadfield off the GAG line VsX scores: 62, 63, 52, 57, 55; average 57.8
Hadfield on the GAG line VsX scores: 97, 77; average 87
This is obviously a quite rough-and-ready approximation of the effect of playing with all-time great linemates, but it's also a fairly conservative one. Frank Boucher + Bill Cook's combined 7-year VsX score is 191.1, considerably higher than that of Richard + Olmstead [178.3] and Ratelle + Gilbert [172.7]. So, there's a pretty good argument that Bun Cook got more help from his linemates than either Hadfield or Mosdell got in even their best seasons.

But anyway...both Vic Hadfield and Kenny Mosdell experienced a bump of about 30 points in VsX production while placed on great lines. In fact, Mosdell's VsX values on the Richard line end up looking a lot like Bun's career VsX value [74 vs. 76.3]. So, the question becomes...if you take Bun Cook off of the Bread Line and put him on some checking unit, does his VsX production fall into the 40s like Mosdell? I think the likely answer to that question is yes.

As far as Bun's intangibles go...meh. I have researched those old Rangers teams extensively, and never came away from reading first-hand accounts of their exploits feeling like Bun Cook had much star power, at all. Descriptions of his grit and his defensive role on the line almost all come from secondary "retrospective" sources of at least somewhat questionable value. Contemporary sources seem to have mostly ignored Bun. This troubles me. Also, he was clearly not that important as a glue guy on the line, as he wasn't as good as Frank Boucher defensively, or as fierce as his brother Bill physically. Even as a glue guy, he played a secondary role.

Guys in Bun's position have largely seen their ATD draft positions drop over the years. Guys like Clark Gillies, Ken Hodge, Kevin Stevens and Steve Shutt used to get drafted higher than they do today, but have seen their draft positions slip as the group has gotten wise to the fact that they were really just secondary players in the shadows of greats. For some reason, Bun's draft stock hasn't slipped that much. I think I'd draft him in more the Doan/Liba/Mayorov range of left wingers. I think he's that overrated, yeah.

Great post, this is the perfect way to illustrate it.

However, I'm a sucker for real life chemistry, so I definitely give some bonus points to Macho Man for reuniting a complete line that is among the greatest in history, even if the 3rd wheel feels out of place on a 1st line. How many bonus points is the question.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
We judge players based on what they did and what we know about them (like not giving a player plus defensive marks because 3 home newspapers said they had a good game or general hook check ability).

People can do all the mental math gymnastics they want, but the fact remains Cook-Boucher-Cook is one of the greatest real life lines ever. Bun Cook, based on stone cold factual draft history wasn't over drafted this year when one uses grade school mathematics to determine an average draft position for years 2011-2019.

Bun Cook could stand to fall. Nobody disputes that. But using him being picked at almost 300, which is lower than almost every single draft prior to this one, to label the pick itself as some massive reach and thus stamping it as the worst assembled line in this particular fantasy world, is just plain strange.

And playing the what if game as it pertains to statistics is really wonky in the ATD. We can speculate all we want as to what Dean Prentice or some other poor sap playing for a constant basement dwelling team would have done if he had played on a line with Jean Beliveau for example. But he didn't.

This is why chemistry, especially in this sport, should count for a lot. We KNOW what the Bread line could do. We can only surmise with the overwhelming majority of the rest of the league here.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
Great post, this is the perfect way to illustrate it.

However, I'm a sucker for real life chemistry, so I definitely give some bonus points to Macho Man for reuniting a complete line that is among the greatest in history, even if the 3rd wheel feels out of place on a 1st line. How many bonus points is the question.
I wanna give Macho Man some credit here. He was kinda killing it with his old-tyme Rangers team until the Bun Cook pick. What makes me sad is that a suped-up version of the line could have been built using the pick spent on Bun. How good would Bob Pulford look in that slot? Mercy. That would be terrifying. Anyway, the reunited Bread Line still ends up being one of the best lines in the draft, but that's because he invested picks #33 and #48 in the unit, not because of Bun Cook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,717
274
North Bay
Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft: Espo/Park Summit Series reunion. Ds & Fs don't exactly need chemistry but I believe these two would work well together, Espo was a steal and Park was a legit pick where he was. No reach necessary.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft: Probably me taking Kostka in round 10, looks like i could have let that one ride a bit longer! After I lost out on Tarasov I overreacted.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft: Nice see to Sprague Cleghorn at 53, outbursts aside his record is way to good to see him ranked as low as he gets.

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft: I'm not sure enough of previous rankings to say.

A player you've discovered in this draft: Bobby Gould & Alexei Gusarov

Most underrated player taken: Nice to see Jay Pandolfo get picked, not that he should have gone higher, but he was a solid player on Madden's wing for a long time and doesn't get enough credit.

Most overrated player taken: Darren Puppa. Last round pick to be a backup goalie so take the 'most overrated' with a grain of salt, but there were lots of better goalies still left I think.

Favorite scoring line of the draft: Denneny-Gretzky-Armstrong feels like it would work great, and would be boss in the playoffs. Shutt-Lemaire-St. Louis would eat a lot of other 2nd lines for breakfast. Also I wish MadArcand would put Satan-Golonka-Martinec together, Pasta works too I guess, I regret not drafting Golonka.

Favorite checking line of the draft: I have to go with Ramsay-Otto-Graham as well, nobody is scoring with that line on the ice. Portland is a great defensive team up and down the lineup.

Best assembled line of the draft: I love the Stastny reunification.

Worst assembled line of the draft: I don't really have one yet.

Favorite pairing of defensemen: I like Shore & Lake reunified on Pittsburgh's second pair.

Most puzzling pairing of defensemen: I don't really have one yet either.

Team in the other conference it'd be interesting to meet in the finals: Sprague's Quebec team, or Team Slavic to go against Team Iron Curtain (not sure if either are in the other conference but just in general).

Team in the other conference you wouldn't want to meet in the finals: Orillia would give Seattle fits I think.

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft: I knew the Soviet-Czech games in the late 60s especially were dramatic but I didnt know the Holik-Ragulin spitting incident from the 1969 WHC.

---

I just did the first 5 rounds...

Best selection: You cannot vote for players you own

1st round: Bobby Hull @ 10
2nd round: Newsy @ 63 (I've cooled on him a bit over the years but 63 is a steal)
3rd round: Frank Mahovlich @99 (the guy has his issue for sure, but 99? for a left winger?)
4th round: Martinec @127, love the Datsyuk pick as well.
5th round: Holecek, I should have left Tretiak on the table and taken Holecek instead of Zubov. Holecek was robbery here.


'Worst' Selection:

1st round: I wanna say Paul Coffey but I just watched young Coffey playing in Gretzky's 50 in 39 game that got posted on NHL.com and my god he controlled the game. I don't see him being two slots behind Chelios being that egregious.
2nd round: Jari Kurri @ 51
3rd round: Hard to say, I feel like the defensemen in this round are in the wrong order though, so somewhere there.
4th round: Nitpicky, but should Alfredsson go over Kariya? Yeah maybe, I don't know. Team needs, etc. ofc
5th round: Konstantinov, too soon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ChiTownPhilly

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
People can do all the mental math gymnastics they want, but the fact remains Cook-Boucher-Cook is one of the greatest real life lines ever. Bun Cook, based on stone cold factual draft history wasn't over drafted this year when one uses grade school mathematics to determine an average draft position for years 2011-2019.
Yes, we agree; navel-gazing is grade-school.
 

tabness

be a playa
Apr 4, 2014
1,998
3,525
Biggest steals: Eric Lindros easily I'd take him top five

Best strategic picks (don't know the thought processes of others but from an outsider perspective):

Aside from reuniting lines and pairings:
  • Karlsson after picking Jagr and Forsberg I loved, many would perhaps go for a more defensive defenseman, but a guy like Karlsson can really work with those two. Love it.
  • Getting Tocchet for Lemieux's line. St. Louis would have worked well there too, but Tocchet's a better fit and makes that line so tough to match up against (don't need speed anyway with Lemieux).
  • Fleury to play with Lindros and LeClair. Brilliant fit in many ways.

Best/favorite scoring lines:
  • LeClair • Lindros • Fleury: wow

  • Goulet • Lemieux • Tocchet: yep

  • Shanahan • Clarke • Leach: other lines may score more but fantastically built line very tough matchup
  • Olmstead • Beliveau • Balderis: not as high on Beliveau in general and especially in these things he'll be one of the few players to be likely to have worse linemates but bringing Olmstead back is nice and Balderis is a very interesting choice to replace Geoffrion

  • Stastny line: love it especially that it's a second line but please bring back Bondra! Marian can play by himself at even strength fine too
  • Bread line: very nice to reunite
  • Kovalchuk • Schmidt • Hossa: wonderful choice of centerman for Kovalchuk and Hossa perfect fit as can be cross era

  • Duff • Lach • Richard: tough to replace what Blake bought off the ice to the Punch line but team first Duff is a nice replacement
Best/favorite checking lines: Completely understandable not to build true checking lines in this thing but two stick out: Ramsey • Otto • Graham and Gainey • Jarvis • Westfall

Best/favorite pairings:
  • Fetisov • Konstantinov

  • Johnson • Harvey

  • Ohlund • Macoun: belong on the Radz

  • Johansson • Patrick: really think these guys are underrated and would also work well together

Best team build: North Bay Centennials are just a great theme to go on and (from what little I know of quite a few of the personnel) nicely built

Best selection:
  • 1st round: Paul Coffey
  • 2nd round: Henri Richard and Mike Bossy
  • 3rd round: Brett Hull and Marcel Dionne since Lindros is for the entire draft
  • 4th round: Peter Stastny and Vladimir Krutov
  • 5th round: Adam Oates and Joe Thornton
  • 6th round: Igor Larionov
  • 7th round: Zigmund Palffy
  • 8th round: Jeremy Roenick and Gary Suter
  • 9th round: Phil Housley
  • 10th round: Rick Tocchet
  • 11th round: Derek Sanderson
  • 12nd round: Pierre Turgeon
  • 13th round: Ulf Samuelsson
  • 14th round: Roman Hamrlik
  • 15th round: James Patrick
  • 16th round: Zinetula Bilyaledtinov
  • 17th round: Hakan Loob
  • 18th round: Troy Murray
  • 19th round: Reijo Ruotsalainen
  • 20th round: Adrian Aucoin and Bob Probert
  • 21st round: Keith Primeau (though I don't like him on the fourth line as I don't think he'll be happy or at his best there)
  • 22nd round: Anders Hedberg and Real Cloutier
  • 23th round: Barry Pederson and Ulf Nilsson and Alexei Zhitnik
  • 24th round: Craig MacTavish and Dennis Maruk
 
Last edited:

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
I wanna give Macho Man some credit here. He was kinda killing it with his old-tyme Rangers team until the Bun Cook pick. What makes me sad is that a suped-up version of the line could have been built using the pick spent on Bun. How good would Bob Pulford look in that slot? Mercy. That would be terrifying. Anyway, the reunited Bread Line still ends up being one of the best lines in the draft, but that's because he invested picks #33 and #48 in the unit, not because of Bun Cook.

Fair enough.
 

RustyRazor

né Selfish Man
Mar 9, 2004
1,886
1,497
PNW
I don't feel comfortable assessing steals and reaches and I'm not here to trash someone else's selections, so here are my faves...

Favorite scoring line of the draft: Goulet - Lemieux - Tocchet is pretty great
Favorite checking line of the draft: Gainey - Jarvis - Westfall
Best assembled line of the draft: Tikkanen - Yzerman - Kurri is a terrific 80s Oilers lite line, IMO.
Favorite pairing of defensemen: Robinson - Desjardins

---

Best selection: You cannot vote for players you own

1st round: Sidney Crosby
2nd round: Pierre Pilote
3rd round: Pavel Bure (2nd time in a row tabness grabbed my preferred pick right before my turn)
4th round: Ron Francis
5th round: Lester Patrick and Adam Oates
6th round: Yvan Cournoyer
7th round: Nicklas Backstrom
8th round: Henrik Sedin
9th round: Red Horner
10th round: Frank Patrick
11th round: Tony Leswick
12nd round: John Madden
13th round: Flash Hollett
14th round: Ryan McDonagh
15th round: Pit Martin
16th round: Clint Smith
17th round: Kjell Samelsson
18th round: Mikko Koivu
19th round: Ernie Russell
20th round: Jason Arnott
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Biggest Steal(s) of the draft: Max Bentley at 129, Russel Bowie at 314, Ernie Russell at 742, Clem Loughlin at 775, Paddy Moran 849

Biggest Reach(es) of the draft: Vladimir Konstantinov at 178, Marc-Andre Fleury at 228, Brian Rafalski at 288, Bob Crystal 801

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft: Doug Gilmour is an upgrade on the real-life center of Busher Jackson and Charlie Conacher. This is how to make good lines in the ATD, not by drafting an inferior player just for chemistry.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft: Patrice Bergeron at 150 to play on the wing. Most of the coaches drafted in the 7th and 8th rounds.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft: Alex Pietrangelo. Amazing what a Cup will do... Ken Mosdell finally gets drafted around where he should.

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft: Dean Prentice.

A player you've discovered in this draft: Flash Hollett to an extent.

Most underrated player taken: I don't know. Clem Loughlin probably shouldn't go that far behind Lloyd Cook or Bobby Rowe.

Most overrated player taken: Joel Otto, based on previous replies to this thread

Favorite scoring line of the draft: Toe Blake - Newsy Lalonde - Daniel Alfredsson

Favorite checking line of the draft: Patrick Sharp - Red Sullivan - John MacLean. HM to Bob Gainey - Doug Jarvis - Ed Westfall. I can't believe I'm picking a line with Jarvis, as I usually don't like lines that can't score on the counterattack, but not many teams built checking lines with counterattack ability.

Best assembled line of the draft: Frank Foyston - Marty Barry - Andy Bathgate (even if it's an accidental redux)

Worst assembled line of the draft: Gustav Jaenecke - Vladimir Zabrodsky - Josef Malecek

Favorite pairing of defensemen: Moose Johnson - Red Kelly. Not the best, but Derian Hatcher - Kevin Hatcher also looks nice.

Most puzzling pairing of defensemen: Mark Giordano - PK Subban

Best selection: You cannot vote for players you own

1st round: Mark Messier at 28
2nd round: Syl Apps at 62
3rd round: Patrick Kane at 94
4th round: Max Bentley at 129
5th round: Frantisek Pospisil at 194
6th round: Gordie Drillon at 232
7th round: Frank Fredrickson at 271
8th round: Russel Bowie at 314
9th round: Bob Pulford at 322
10th round: Red Dutton at 387 (not many strong RH-shots left at that point)
11th round: Glen Sather at 410
12nd round: Viktor Kuzkin at 470
13th round: Ivan Hlinka at 491
14th round: Jakub Voracek at 532 (playmaking wings are usually at a premium), Vladimir Vikulov at 556
15th round: Camille Henry at 563
16th round: Patrick Sharp at 604
17th round: Pie McKenzie at 671
18th round: Ed Sandford at 690, Craig Conroy at 710
19th round: Ernie Russell at 742
20th round: Clem Loughlin at 775
21st round: Georges Mantha at 809
22nd round: Paddy Moran 849
23th round: Patrick Sundstrom at 898, Oliver Ekman-Larson at 904,
24th round: Michal Handzus at 927, Lou Fontinato at 935, Craig MacTavish at 944

'Worst' Selection:

1st round: Steve Yzerman at 30
2nd round: Brian Leetch at 50
3rd round: Brendan Shanahan at 115
4th round: Sergei Zubov at 132
5th round: Vladimir Konstantinov at 178
6th round: Marc-Andre Fleury at 228
7th round: Pat Lafontaine at 280 (nothing too bad this round; had to pick someone)
8th round: Brian Rafalski at 288
9th round: Reggie Leach at 355
10th round: Joel Otto at 370
11th round: Bobby Holik at 418 (defensive specialist who can't PK)
12nd round: Albert Leduc at 479
13th round: Wendel Clark at 485
14th round: Mark Scheifele at 560
15th round:
16th round: Mario Marois at 633
17th round: Dan Girardi at 647
18th round:
19th round: Ted Irvine at 721
20th round:
21st round: Bob Cyrstal 801
22nd round: Kevin McCarthy at 880
23th round:
24th round:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Say Hey Kid

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
Favorite checking line of the draft: Patrick Sharp - Red Sullivan - John MacLean. HM to Bob Gainey - Doug Jarvis - Ed Westfall. I can't believe I'm picking a line with Jarvis, as I usually don't like lines that can't score on the counterattack, but not many teams built checking lines with counterattack ability.

That line isn't really designed to score much, obviously, but despite that, Westfall was a regular 45-55 point player during his peak. Just 74 of his career 625 points came on the man advantage. That's under 12%. Even Gainey could be counted on for 15-20 goals a year. 501 career points and only 27 came on the PP. That's 5%. Plus he raised his offensive output during the 5 Cup runs that he was a part of. 44 points in 68 games is nothing to sneeze at for him with a Smythe in 1979 when he scored 16 in 16. These guys can absolutely score at ES in a bottom 6 role. Yeah, it won't be much, but it's not the point of the line, especially with the top 6's elite scoring C's and overall offensive chemistry there.

The point, in my mind, was to give Pittsburgh a big advantage in match ups. My top line (and more importantly Bowie's line as a 2nd unit) will rarely go up against any group that comes close to the defensive aptitude of this line. Too often we compare offensive lines to offensive lines in determining who is "superior" but a scoring line doesn't often play against an opposing scoring line. Any offensive unit that comes into contact with Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall is going to get checked up and down the ice, both physically and postionally speaking. We're talking 2 of the greatest defensive F's in the history of hockey and a C who was probably in the next tier of defensive gems, meaning not elite, but great still.

Great to elite skating is prevalent across the board. Elite checking in both directions from the wings. Even Jarvis was a scrappy player, not in the class of Gainey/Westfall, but given how modern hockey has developed, I would rather see a positionally strong C who can skate at a high level which Jarvis can do both of.

Jarvis is also one of the greatest faceoff specialists of all time so that is another big advantage that often goes overlooked.

Westfall had real life success at shutting down Bobby Hull down in the playoffs, who's in my division. If you have the ability to terminate the effectiveness of Hull, you can slow/stop anyone on a wing, sans maybe Gordie Howe haha.

And given they'll be out there a lot with the top 4 of Keith-Coulter, Shore-Lake, you have very good ability from the back end to transition the puck. Keith gets very high marks for that ability, and given you read the Shore/Lake bio, know those 2, especially the former, was noted for rushing ability. And if the D wants to move up more, in a Pete Green manner, which was widely used during his first tenure, you know the F line will always have a man (or 2) back to cover.

Honestly, I'm pretty happy I was able to pull that unit off without having to reach on any of the 3. And there is the added bonus of Jarvis-Gainey getting to reunite having played together for years in real life.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft: Tim Kerr - round 15, #538 [This pick cemented the Swamp Devils as one of my favorites to win this year]

To be honest, I felt pretty good when I read this when it was first posted.

Not that Kerr was a core player or anything, but before I drafted Flash Hollett and Tim Kerr, the powerplay was a pretty big weakness on the Swamp Devils.
 

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
I'd also be interested in hearing about picks you were particularly sad to have missed out on, and how your roster might have looked with those picks on board:

I had three for the IceCaps:

Vincent Damphousse: Drafting the Punch Line 1-2-3 was bound to set me up with the worst defense in the history of the ATD, so I filled in some other team needs with a Habs flair until I settled on homeless-man's-Toe-Blake Dick Duff for the top line LW. And that wasn't great, but most of you still liked the line. But I really wanted Damphousse, who sits somewhere partway between Blake and Duff on the talent scale. If he fell half a round or so I'd have certainly missed out on Terry Harper, but Ted Harris was there for the taking in the spot I took Duff.

Carey Price: Tony Esposito's playoff record is more or less poison in the ATD, although the team was good enough to win a round anyway, which was nice. It's pretty clear to me that Tony was wildly overworked in his regular season prime, and I did say I wanted to get a proper time-sharing setup in place to avoid that. Price is the 42nd goalie taken this year, well within 1A territory. Andy Moog was fine as a 40-team-ATD backup, but not a guy I could really use as ammo to rehabilitate Esposito. I started my 4th line with Red Berenson for my next pick, so I'd have to find a forward. Russ Courtnall was available when I took Moog, and his best use might have been on the third line, making Trevor Linden into a centre.

Doug Young: Would have been the perfect partner for Vadnais. Stuff it, TDMM.

So I'd have been left with:

Damphousse - Lach - Rocket
Naslund - Little M - Drillon
Marshall - Linden - Courtnall
Mantha - Smith - Gagnon

Savard - Mantha
Harris - Gonchar
Vadnais - Young

Esposito
Price

+extras

Overall, I think it's a bit stronger. The second line would have still attracted some flies, but I really didn't have a backup plan for Pete Mahovlich. I thought of snapping up Turgeon somewhere along the way, but he and Drillon together would have been tantamount to a Kick Me sign in assassination. Could have used Damphousse there if I had him, but then I'd be back dialing Dick Duff's number.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
I'd also be interested in hearing about picks you were particularly sad to have missed out on, and how your roster might have looked with those picks on board:

I had three for the IceCaps:

Vincent Damphousse: Drafting the Punch Line 1-2-3 was bound to set me up with the worst defense in the history of the ATD, so I filled in some other team needs with a Habs flair until I settled on homeless-man's-Toe-Blake Dick Duff for the top line LW. And that wasn't great, but most of you still liked the line. But I really wanted Damphousse, who sits somewhere partway between Blake and Duff on the talent scale. If he fell half a round or so I'd have certainly missed out on Terry Harper, but Ted Harris was there for the taking in the spot I took Duff.

Carey Price: Tony Esposito's playoff record is more or less poison in the ATD, although the team was good enough to win a round anyway, which was nice. It's pretty clear to me that Tony was wildly overworked in his regular season prime, and I did say I wanted to get a proper time-sharing setup in place to avoid that. Price is the 42nd goalie taken this year, well within 1A territory. Andy Moog was fine as a 40-team-ATD backup, but not a guy I could really use as ammo to rehabilitate Esposito. I started my 4th line with Red Berenson for my next pick, so I'd have to find a forward. Russ Courtnall was available when I took Moog, and his best use might have been on the third line, making Trevor Linden into a centre.

Doug Young: Would have been the perfect partner for Vadnais. Stuff it, TDMM.

So I'd have been left with:

Damphousse - Lach - Rocket
Naslund - Little M - Drillon
Marshall - Linden - Courtnall
Mantha - Smith - Gagnon

Savard - Mantha
Harris - Gonchar
Vadnais - Young

Esposito
Price

+extras

Overall, I think it's a bit stronger. The second line would have still attracted some flies, but I really didn't have a backup plan for Pete Mahovlich. I thought of snapping up Turgeon somewhere along the way, but he and Drillon together would have been tantamount to a Kick Me sign in assassination. Could have used Damphousse there if I had him, but then I'd be back dialing Dick Duff's number.

I think I did this already, but I'll post it again.

Kevin Lowe - I should have picked Jim Neilson instead. I looked at Neilson at the time, and have no idea why I decided on Lowe.

Wade Redden - I should have picked Leo Reise Jr. I think Redden is a better defensemen, but I would have had a better make-up if I would play my #4 with Burns.

Bobby Schmautz - I should have picked Cully Wilson.


Top-4 Defense of Neilson-Doughty and Reise-Burns looks a lot more balanced than what I had.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
I would have picked Frank Finnigan to play with Sweeney Schriner and Mark Messier on my Hap Day team.

Sweeney Schriner - Mark Messier - Frank Finnigan

For some reason it looks good to me. Maybe the same initials effect (SS-MM-FF).

Should've taken Ryan Getzlaf instead of Punch Broadbent, pure blunder.

Looking back, if my heart was more in it I should have build a contending powerhouse with my Ottawa team. The foundation was there for sure. Too bad.

Once I had:

Sweeney Schriner - Mark Messier (C) - XXX
XXX - XXX - XXX
XXX - XXX - XXX

Sprague Cleghorn - Jimmy Thomson
XXX - Guy Lapointe

Henrik Lundqvist

I should have done much better than I ended up doing.

Ryan Getzlaf should have been the next pick. Then some winger to play with him (say Gordon Roberts or Mike Gartner or something). Then coach Hap Day, then Frank Finnigan and I was in business.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->