First, in case it got lost and buried in the lineup assassination thread, here is my assessment of my lineup. As you can see, I like it a lot:
Offense: I think my team can score with the best of them - perhaps better. Pierre Larouche is a top-3 offensive first line center in this draft, and has a top-10 finish in the NHL to prove it, as well as six PPG seasons and a PPG career average. Stephane Richer has finished 6th and 7th in the NHL in goals. Kozlov has been a very solid first and second line player for 14 years and complements their skills well. Allison as a second-line center will prove to be a good choice. His speed should not be a major concern. Many of you will remember the big fuss that was made about his slowness in his last NHL season, which was played after being inactive for 34 months. Prior to that, Allison was at least an average skater and won Los Angeles' fastest skater competition. He has finished in the top-10 in NHL scoring on two occasions. Allison can score, but is mostly a pure setup guy who is most effective with dynamic wingers with similar puck skills, and he has that and more in Rick Nash and Alexei Kovalev. Is there a better stickhandling line in the league? Is there even one close? Nash is a pure scorer who has led the NHL in goals once. Kovalev has been top-10 in goals and points twice each, and has equal scoring and playmaking ability. My third line is constructed to defend, however, it can and will make the one-dimensional first lines pay for their mistakes. Sundstrom is a three-time PPG'er, and Acton has been once. Jimmy Peters had decent offensive numbers too. The fourth line also is made up of defensive players but is far more modest offensively, as is our one spare, Hunter. Our other spare, Carveth, can step in and provide more offense if needed, as he also is a top-10 finisher. On the blueline, Bob Murray and Darryl Sydor are great offensively but won't put me any further ahead of or behind any other high-scoring bluelines in that department. The other four are mainly there to defend. A wildcard is Roman Hamrlik, someone I would switch up with Colin White or Albert Langlois in a heartbeat if the offense appeared to be drying up. With over 500 career points and a wicked shot, he can inject more punch into the lineup if it ever lacks.
Defense: My first line is made up of two players who do not play very good defense, and one who is great on defense. I don't expect Kozlov to be able to fully make up for their deficiencies, but he will be the line's defensive conscience. The second line, as dynamic offensively as it can be, will be a defensive liablity and will try to outscore the other team while they are out there. The fourth line contains a three-time Selke vote-getter, an all-around threat in Acton who is excellent on faceoffs, and a proven shutdown guy in Peters. On the fourth, we have two more selke vote-getters in Hrdina (another excellent faceoff guy) and Miller, and our token tough guy who won't hurt us in any way, Mark Hunter. Dave Hunter also wouldn't hurt us if inserted into the bottom six. I don't see a single defenseman who would hurt us defensively. There is no standout shutdown guy, but they are all at least adequate.
Goaltending: I believe Wilf Cude to be a top-5 starter in this draft. His modest credentials were some of the best in any available draft when it opened. He was a Stanley Cup finalist and has been on the 2nd team all-star twice - equivalent to being a vezina runner-up twice nowadays. This four-year period of being (roughly) the 2nd best goalie in the NHL gives him the best peak of all goalies aside from Mowers. Cechmanek is, IMO, almost as good. His NHL credentials in four short seasons are excellent (top 3 in GAA and sv%, vezina runner up, jennings), and before you criticize him for his short NHL career, remember he was simply Hasekian in the Czech league, with five straight league titles and 38 international games played in various tournaments.
Size/Toughness: I wanted forwards who were at least big, if not strong too. My top six won't disappoint. Larouche was average size for his time, but Richer had great size and took poundings in the corner and in front of the net. He was not afraid to get his nose dirty. Kozlov's small stature precludes him from getting too physical, but he has never been called a shrinking violet either. He gets the job done without being intimidated. The entire second line are all the same: Big and strong, and very willing to be physical when needed. All three players have thrown big hits from time to time and Kovalev will even get dirty to protect himself. All three prefer not to, but will stand up for themselves. The third line is a mixed bag in this area but overall, it's no pansy line. The fourth features two potential lady-byngers, but they were both guys who could check effectively without being penalized. And Hunter is.... a Hunter. On the sidelines, Carveth is nothing special and Hunter is.... another Hunter. On the blueline, Sydor and Brown are merely adequate phyically (at best), but the others are all imposing guys who will make you pay. White, Fogolin, Fontinato, and Langlois are all able to hit, facewash, or fight.
Playoffs: I picked this team with an emphasis on playoff performance and stanley cups. Out of my scoring forwards, I would consider only one to be disappointing in the playoffs, and that is Nash, who has never appeared in a playoff game. Allison has 25 in 25, Kovalev, Kozlov, and Richer have GPG and PPG averages that are either higher or slightly lower than their regular season averages. Kovalev has only been eliminated in round 1 once. Larouche is only a touch below his regular season production too. Kozlov is the Red Wings' all-time leader in playoff GWG, on a team that featured Yzerman and Howe for over 20 years each. On the blueline, there are four defensemen who were very solid in helping their teams win multiple cups (Langlois, White, Sydor, Fogolin). Murray exceeds his regular season output in the playoffs and Sydor's has gone down only minimally, while maintaining excellent defensive play. As for cups, who has more cups than this team? I count 25, including nine multiple winners and four who did it on multiple teams (Peters, Richer, Sydor, Hrdina)
Leadership/Intangibles: The team has adequate leadership in captain Keith Acton, a solid all-around citizen who will provide an example of hard work on every third-line shift he takes. Murray and Kozlov are assistants due to the lengths of their careers relative to their linemates. Kozlov is known as the professor, a great student of the game and an excellent mentor to younger players. He has worked wonders with Ilya Kovalchuk. The bottom six is filled with solid people who all give honest efforts. I understand the team will be criticized for its "head cases" - Kovalev, Larouche, Richer, and to a lesser extent, Allison. Allison made a bit of a stink about ice time in his last season but aside from that, was low maintenance. Larouche saw limited ice time in Montreal due to the star power and his lack of defensive responsibility. His offense-first attitude will be embraced by the Fighting Kugels. Kovalev and Richer are both immenseley talented on-and-off guys. I believe when you average out their times spent on and off over their careers, both their careers wash out as quite excellent. And it should be noted that, head cases or not, they all produce in the playoffs. Nash is not a head case, per se, but he is a bit of a "wild kid" who will need to be reigned in to be effective and not a defensive liability. On defense, no player has been criticized as a bad dressing room guy, but many are/were popular teammates. In goal, Cude will not be an issue, and Cechmanek will wait for Cude's first bad game before trying to prove in his first start, that he should be the starter. His pride and swagger will make for an interesting duel should Cude show any cracks.
Coaching: Marc Crawford is an intense coach that demands solid efforts from all four lines. He may clash with Kovalev and Richer, but he managed to reign in the biggest malcontent of all-time, Todd Bertuzzi, and turn him into a top-5 player for two seasons. He is loyal to his goaltender to a fault, so let's hope he has the stones to turn to Cechmanek if he finds himself down two games to none in a series.
Well, ADC, As I learned last time, it's a cutthroat business winning these series by swaying the other GM's opinions, so I am not going to pull any punches. Don't take anything personal, and keep it as clean as I do! I'm going to start by saying I like this matchup a lot. I know it is as an apparent underdog, but I am glad I am facing you.
A lot of GM's apparently liked your first line. I am not thrilled. None of them have been selected in any draft before, and the last one went 936 picks deep. That said, I must say Harry Trihey looks like a HUGE steal - based on his bio at legendsofhockey I can't believe he doesn't go in the main draft. Scanlan and Farrell, despite being hall of famers, appear to be quite ordinary in comparison. A thinker like Trihey could have played with any winger, so I don't feel there was the need to get those two. Deadmarsh would make a better third-liner in this draft - in his full NHL seasons, he was #2, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 10 among forwards on his team. That's an average of 5th each season. Surely for a second line in an all-time draft you would want to have a guy who was a top forward on your scoring line, not a guy playing essentially the same role he did in real life, no? Zetterberg is an amazing talent and a great all-around player but he is in just his third season as a premier NHL forward, and this season will be the first that he finishes top-10 in goals or points. A guy with his two-way ability, I'd want him on the third line until he has more proven offensive credentials. Sheppard has the talent to be on the first or second line in this draft. Despite being slower forwards than Dave Andreychuk skating backwards barefoot, he was the league's 5th and 3rd top goal scorer (three-way tie both times) for a two year period.
On the other hand, my top six forwards contain five elite, top-line NHL forwards who led their teams in scoring more often than not. In other words, my second line has three first-liners and yours has an actual second-liner.
Your third line is excellent. I like Prystai. I had him on my shortlist after doing my initial research, only to find that he was selected during the couple of hours I spent researching. (How much better is he than my steal, Jimmy Peters, though?) You've surrounded him with complementary wingers and there is no question that this line will make life difficult for one of my top two lines. But what about the other one? Your 4th line won't do it. In all honesty I think it's a useless line. Brylin is a proven winger who is responsible, though not a true shutdown guy. Murphy is a headcase of the highest order, and contributes nothing to a team besides offense, so he will be scratching his head at being placed on the fourth line, and will pout. Mel Hill is more of a novelty pick for his playoff heroics that are well-documented. His regular season numbers look OK too, but he had seasons of 20, 20, 9, and 12 points when the best talent wasn't in the war, and seasons of 37, 44, 19 (in 17 games) and 35 when the war was on. He won't hurt you too much, but he's certainly nothing special and has not been picked before. Your 4th line has no clear role and will either have to play 5 minutes, tiring out the other lines, or be a serious liability against one of my top 2 scoring lines, each of which are stacked.
With a pairing of Galley and Driver, my top 6 forwards are licking their chops. Neither is a defensive stalwart. There is some serious talent at all six forward spots, and they will have trouble containing them. Your other four will make life hell for them as much as they can, but these guys aren't going to get the minutes my top forwards get.
My defensemen will handle your forwards better than yours will handle mine, not because my defensemen are that much better, but because my forwards are. For the record, Murray and Sydor are maybe a 10% upgrade on Driver and Galley, and my other four vs. your other four is a virtual wash. (although Phat Wilson is ipressive)
I also consider goaltending to be a wash. Cude and McNeil both have modest accomplishments, but very strong resumes for the MLD. Cude had a four year period in which he did something of significance in three of them. McNeil did the same in a three year period, including winning the cup. I seriously considered him as his peak is equal or 10% better, but with just four seasons as an NHL starter, I wasn't sure how it would be received. Not to mention, he did what he did behing an extremely stacked team... Cude, not so much. As for the backups, I don't see either of them being a factor simply because neither will probably play. I have great respect for the abilities of both of them. Both had a three-year period in which they were top-5 in the NHL. Hebert had ten more seasons in which he was a decent NHL goalie, and Cechmanek had ten more seasons as an excellent Czech league goalie. Sounds about even to me!
You've got 23 cups (by my rough count) to my 25, and I am not going to go and claim that is a huge difference. However, Four of my top 6 forwards have outstanding playoff resumes when compared to their regular season talent. (Kozlov's GPG goes from .31 to .36 and PPG goes from .73 to .67, Richer goes from .4 to .4 and from .78 to .73, Allison goes from .28 to .28 and from .88 to 1.00, Kovalev goes from .34 to .37 and from .81 to .84. Even if you include Larouche in this group, who goes from .49 to .31 and from 1.01 to .84, on average, these five players experience 5% drops in goals and points in the playoffs, which is amazing when you consider how much scoring generally drops in the playoffs.) Two of my bottom six have been huge in shutdown roles on cup winners and two others have received Selke votes. Out of your top-6 forwards, I can't exactly rate the top 3 due to lack of avaialble statistics, but I can assume they were all adequate enough to win two cups. The next three all have playoff numbers that go south in April, (Deadmarsh goes from .32 to .25 GPG and from .66 to .63 PPG in the playoffs, Zetterberg goes from .43 to .37 and from .93 to .63, Sheppard goes from .44 to .37 and from .80 to .62 - drops of 22%, 16%, and 14% in GPG, and drops of 5%, 32%, and 22% in PPG!) and it will only be compounded by who they have to play against in this series. I will be matching my 3rd line, the premier shutdown pair, against your top line out of necessity, but my fourth will do just fine against your second. Hunter/Deadmarsh will have some epic battles in the corners. As for production from the defense in the playoffs, we are each only dressing two guys with experience producing NHL-level offense - Sydor and Murray for me, and Driver and Galley for you. The former have career playoff PPG drops of 4% and 11% while the latter have experienced drops of 13% and 36%. Not too promising for those two, considering neither is a defensive stalwart by any stretch.
Coaching: All Carlyle has on Crawford is the winning percentage, due to having only two playoff runs in his career. Both have a cup so they know how to get there. But there is no substitute for experience. Crawford has coached 83 playoff games to Carlyle's 38. Also, Carlyle's trademark so far has been a relentless checking game and I don't think you have the lineup to play that game.
Plus, Kovalev has only a one in eight chance of being eliminated in the first round, according to history
Sorry man, I think you drew the wrong team.