ATD #9 René Lecavalier Quarterfinal: #1 Detroit Red Wings vs. #8 Brooklyn Yawning Ott
- Thread starter FissionFire
- Start date
Heat McManus
Registered User
Taylor - Lindros - Shanahan
Mahovlich - Crosby - Mogilny
Gelinas - Madden - Nystrom
Shack - Johansson - McCarty
Fielder
Housley - Hatcher
Wentworth - Hartsburg
Wesley - Liapkin
Ozolinsh - Driver
Tretiak
Osgood
coach - Bobrov
PP
1 2
Lindros Crosby
Taylor Mahovlich
Shanahan Mogilny
Housley Wentworth
Hatcher Hartsburg
PK
1 2
Madden Crosby
Gelinas Shanahan
Hatcher Wentworth
Wesley Liapkin
Mahovlich - Crosby - Mogilny
Gelinas - Madden - Nystrom
Shack - Johansson - McCarty
Fielder
Housley - Hatcher
Wentworth - Hartsburg
Wesley - Liapkin
Ozolinsh - Driver
Tretiak
Osgood
coach - Bobrov
PP
1 2
Lindros Crosby
Taylor Mahovlich
Shanahan Mogilny
Housley Wentworth
Hatcher Hartsburg
PK
1 2
Madden Crosby
Gelinas Shanahan
Hatcher Wentworth
Wesley Liapkin
Last edited:
I want to watch how I word this, because I don't want to sound like I'm slamming Vakar's squad, but Brooklyn was the prize for finishing first. A good first entry from Vakar, who didn't have the benefit of a co-GM to bounce ideas off of. Probably could have finished fifth or sixth in the divisions in the other conference. But a definite cut below the other seven teams in the ATD's all-time Group of Death.
Detroit's first line reminds me a lot of the first line we had in the last draft. Two small, fleet-flooted, highly-skilled forwards teamed with a burly power forward. Halifax's Bentley-Bentley-Neely line was the best of the last draft; Gillies-Taylor-Cournoyer is one of the best in this draft. The good news for Brooklyn is they have a very quick, very defensively smart centre in Madden to match up against Taylor. The bad news is I'm not sure Brooklyn's defence can stop this line once Taylor gets going.
I'm not sure about Herbie Lewis as a second line LW, even if he is playing with old line-mate Marty Barry. But that's why Craig Simpson is a great pick-up. Put Simpson out there in a close game late when Detroit needs a goal.
Detroit might have the best-built defence in the draft. I don't know if Spit was thinking "stop Lindros" when he picked Vasko. But Vasko can stop Lindros. Not many six-foot-three defencemen have Vasko's mobility or hockey sense. And he's tough as nails. That second pairing is one of the best in the draft. Tough and mobile. Not big, but they play big.
Brooklyn has a talented and aggressive first line, and an ultra-skilled second line, but Detroit's defence will make life difficult for both lines. A Mogilny-for-Taylor swap might be a good idea; give the first line a little more of a game-breaking presence, give the second line some more toughness for when they go against the Mortson-Stanowski tandem, and guys like Nestorenko.
Ironic that this series probably matches up the two best European-born goalies of all-time. (Hasek and Tretiak).
Detroit's first line reminds me a lot of the first line we had in the last draft. Two small, fleet-flooted, highly-skilled forwards teamed with a burly power forward. Halifax's Bentley-Bentley-Neely line was the best of the last draft; Gillies-Taylor-Cournoyer is one of the best in this draft. The good news for Brooklyn is they have a very quick, very defensively smart centre in Madden to match up against Taylor. The bad news is I'm not sure Brooklyn's defence can stop this line once Taylor gets going.
I'm not sure about Herbie Lewis as a second line LW, even if he is playing with old line-mate Marty Barry. But that's why Craig Simpson is a great pick-up. Put Simpson out there in a close game late when Detroit needs a goal.
Detroit might have the best-built defence in the draft. I don't know if Spit was thinking "stop Lindros" when he picked Vasko. But Vasko can stop Lindros. Not many six-foot-three defencemen have Vasko's mobility or hockey sense. And he's tough as nails. That second pairing is one of the best in the draft. Tough and mobile. Not big, but they play big.
Brooklyn has a talented and aggressive first line, and an ultra-skilled second line, but Detroit's defence will make life difficult for both lines. A Mogilny-for-Taylor swap might be a good idea; give the first line a little more of a game-breaking presence, give the second line some more toughness for when they go against the Mortson-Stanowski tandem, and guys like Nestorenko.
Ironic that this series probably matches up the two best European-born goalies of all-time. (Hasek and Tretiak).
Spitfire11
Registered User
Thanks for the votes everyone, really unexpected finish. Vakar, I know it sucks to end up 8th, it happened to me last draft, but you were stuck in a really tough division. That first line of yours is badass, and Cy Wentworth along with Paul Thompson are the two most underrated players in the draft imo. Your forwards are solid, I think what set your team back was the top D pairing of Housley-Hatcher. Anyways, good luck in the series.
Spitfire11
Registered User
Lewis just fit perfectly on the team, I tried to build a disciplined gritty team with speed up the wazoo, and Lewis was tough and considered the fastest player in the NHL when he played. I figured Barry-Iginla gives the 2nd line enough scoring and Lewis is the perfect compliment being a good defensive winger, and a pass-first player to set up his linemates. He only had 2 top-10 scoring finishes but he was a 2-time Cup winner as a 1st line winger and had a big showing in the playoffs both times finishing 2nd and 4th in team scoring. Then of course there's the chemistry factor with Barry. I dunno, I think he's do fine but your right, Simpson is there if he falters and Sandford as well. And thanks as always for the review GBC, always a good read.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I think Scott Niedermayer is rather overrated as a #1 defenseman in this format. His Norris voting tally shows a guy with a one year blip as a 3rd team all star (5th in voting) followed by a number of unspectacular seasons and then the great three year finish which is still fresh in everyone's minds. I don't really think his Conn-Smythe was deserving, but he's got it, so what do I know? Another defenseman who I don't think should be taken before Bill Gadsby.
I see Niedermayer more in the range of a Lapointe/Vasiliev player: still a good #1, but not as good as his normal draft position would indicate. Given our disagreement on Cam Neely, I think it's clear that you and I weigh peak vs. career value quite differently, so perhaps this is another case of contrasting philosophies of player evaluation.
Vasko is a solid #2 defenseman. There are a lot of great #2 defensemen in the league and I wouldn't put him in the upper eschelon, but he's not out of place, either. No hands to speak of, but a strong player without the puck, fast and a guy who can handle the crease-clearing duties that might be a chore for Niedermayer against some of the bigger forwards in the league. It's a solid top pairing, but there are quite a few better ones.
I know you have a thing for Gus Mortson, GBC, but I've never quite understood it. Mortson was a tough, rushing defenseman and a strong skater on a dynasty Leafs team who had a one year peak as a first team all-star in a weak year for high-end defensemen (Mortson shared 1st team honors with Reardon in 51, and the second teamers were Reise Jr. and Kelly, in Red's first strong season). Wally Stanowski is much the same, a solid dynasty team offensive defenseman with one great season. Although I think both Mortson and Stanowski are legitimate 2nd pairing players, I'm not sure about the mix of talent putting two puck rushers on the same pairing and neither strikes me as a guy who was dominant for more than a very brief period. Again, possibly a question of peak vs. career value.
There are a lot of great 2nd pairing defensemen in this league and many teams have a #3 who was dominant over an extended period of time, which cannot be said for either Gus or Ski. Looking around, I don't really see how Mortson - Stanowski can be called one of the best second pairings in the draft. I think they are average, at best, and that Detroit's blueline is, overall, quite average.
Considering the strength of the Red Wings forwards and Hasek in net, fielding an average defense is an achievement, but average is exactly what I think they are. That said, I think it's obvious which team has the defensive advantage in this series.
i agree. i think d-corps is the weak spot of detroit. forwards are good and hasek is maybe the best ever.
not a big deal, since every team has its weaknesses. plus hasek can compensate somewhat for an average blueline.
niedermayer always goes too high. imo, mark howe is as good or better.
vasko, mortson, stanowski, bergman and owen are a solid group, but not great. should be strong in moving the puck.
i think elite forwards will penetrate detroit's D often, (that's what makes them elite forwards) but then they have to beat hasek.
lindros vs niedermayer.
i remembered something funny.
when stevens delivered his famous hit on lindros, he came from the other side of the ice. lindros skated to the blueline toward niedermayer, who shrunk away from lindros and tried to hook him. lindros was able to go right past niedermayer.
then stevens crushed him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Z7-XRPcrw
whereas niedermayer goes too high, i think lindros goes too low.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
My favorite Stevens hit is easily the one that ended up with Kozlov's chin strap up over his nose. My god, that was funny.
You know, I've never given that much thought to Lindros, but he may be another modern player whose faults are overanalyzed by many on this board. I dunno if Big E is really underdrafted at such a deep position, but he may be underappreciated, all the same. Brooklyn's top line is pretty fearsome, actually.
if you're talking about the one in the '95 finals, that was my least favorite. kozlov was one of my favorite players.
stevens had 2 such hits on kozlov.
i think that's definitely the case. everyone thinks of stevens' hit and detroit dominating philadelphia in the finals.
he could be an *******, and many dislike him, myself included, but he was a dominant player.
if he hadn't played after 2000, his reputation would probably also be better.
from '93-'00
486 games, 659p=1.35
playoffs
50 games, 57p=1.14
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I will add that I don't have any problem with Herbie Lewis as the defensive conscience of a second line. He's a speedy 2-way player with some offensive pop and fits well in that role, in my opinion. In a 32 team draft, second line support players don't have to be world-beaters and I'd have been happy to have Lewis in Springfield.
Other than Hasek, Detroit's biggest strength may be depth forwards. Watson, Shadrin and Phillips are all outstanding in their respective roles and the rest of the bottom six is good, as well.
I know my opinions on this player are already well known, but the only real weak spot I see at forward in Detroit is Clark Gillies on the first line. I was an Islanders fan during Gillies' heyday (still am...groan) and although the faithful loved him, I always considered Clark the most overrated player on the team. Yeah, he was a great tough guy, a fierce hitter and fighter and a solid two-way player (who wasn't on that team?), but his offensive abilities are conspicuously bad for an ATD 1st liner. People seem to consider Gillies a "playoff warrior", but he was never really all that great in the postseason outside of 1984, when the wheels finally came off and the Isles were smashed by Edmonton in the finals.
I do agree that Niedermayer is overrated. And I do agree that there is no way he should ever be picked ahead of Bill Gadsby, and some of the other defencemen he goes before because we have watched him play. But I think a great defence isn't just about personnel, it's about how they come together. And that's why Spit's D is just so good.
I think Moose Vasko is the perfect defenceman to play with Niedermayer. He's big, he's fast, he's smart, he's physical. A decent No. 2 who might be better served as a No. 3. When we targeted Mohns, there was one other defenceman on our hit list to trade up to get: Moose Vasko. We wouldn't have paid the premium we paid to get Mohns, but we still would have given up a fair amount to get Vasko. (And yeah, when Vasko slipped, I was sweating). Niedermayer-Vasko is just a great tandem together; one of the draft's best.
I disagree on Mortson-Stanowski. Both of them. I think you're really underrating their defensive abilities. Mortson was double-tough; led the league in PIMs four times. Mean, aggressive son of a gun. But he could skate. Stanowski was probably faster than Mohns. Not as tough, but he had a mean streak, too, and threw some big, clean hits. And Stanowski was definitely a very reliable player in his own zone. I had Mortson as a reasonable No. 2, and Stanowski as a high-end No. 4.
So you have a decent No. 1 who always goes too soon, a reasonable No. 2, an okay No. 2 who might be better served as a No. 3, and a high-end No. 4. So what's so special? It's just a quartet that works. They compliment their styles well. They mesh. All four are very mobile, all four have very, very good hockey sense, and three of the four can make life miserable for opposing forwards.
I don't know if you need Herbie Lewis as a defensive conscience when you have Marty Barry out there. From what I've been able to ascertain, Barry was a very good defensive forward, certainly not someone who needs a defensive conscience.
I disagree on Gillies being overrated. Except by 2002 HHOF voters. I really like Gillies, and I think you see the impact he had on the Islanders when you consider that they have been openly looking for the next Gillies for 25-30 years, and they have failed to find him.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
See, I just don't get this argument, GBC. Mortson was a one-time all-star. He was fast, he had good offensive numbers and he had high PIM totals. Of course, we could also be describing Pat Egan or Al Iafrate here. You have consistently pimped Gus Mortson in this draft to the point that I think he is becoming highly overrated, at least in your mind. A #2 all-time defenseman?!
Lack of all-star love doesn't necessarily mean a guy isn't worthy of ATD love. Neither Horner nor Day were ever all-stars, and yet they are Hall of Famers, presumably because they had Zubov-like careers in which they were never really elite, but very good for a long time. There seems to be an assumption around here that a bunch of old defensemen (Mortson, Heller and Wentworth, at the very least - Stanowski's not really drafted all that high) also fall into or very close to this category, and yet I see very little evidence to support this value.
To be honest, I don't really consider Day and Horner #2 defensemen. I think they're good #3s. Hey, there is a ton of talent among #3s in this league, and I think the aforementioned Leafs fall more into the high end of #3 ATD defensemen. But I can buy them as #2s in the right situation.
But Gus ****ing Mortson?! Seriously, if Al Iafrate had played in Mortson's era I get the impression that you'd be pimping him as a #2 ATD defenseman. Iafrate was big and tough, strong skater, scored a lot and was a one time all-star. Am I saying that Gus Mortson is Al Iafrate? No, but he could be. We really don't know that much about Gus. Mortson's maximum upside is that he could be close to the Horner/Day level, but his downside is that he's Al Iafrate.
When I evaluate old-timers about which there is little objective evidence, I try to split the difference between how good he could have been and how bad he could have been. Labeling Mortson a #2 defenseman is not splitting the difference. Labeling him a #4 defenseman is splitting the difference, and I think that's where he belongs. Honestly, I think of Stanowski as a #5.
I mentioned this as early as the Newsy Lalonde Victory Parade in the 2nd round, but the pendulum has swung much too far towards old-timers in this forum. At present, many GMs seem to give mysterious old timers an enormous benefit of the doubt while dissecting modern players on a game-by-game basis. If you believe some GMs in this draft, Zdeno Chara is a #5 defenseman and Gus Mortson is a #2. It is an insult to reason.
GBC, if you've got some more information on Mortson, then please cite it - give us a reference so we can read it ourselves. Same for Marty Barry's defensive abilities. I've researched Barry thoroughly and found nothing on his 2-way play. Simply stating that players are this or that without any sort of proof just doesn't fly.
Spitfire11
Registered User
I have no delusions about my defense, I like it and think it'll work well but I know it's not one of the better ones in the draft.
I agree Niedermayer isn't an ideal #1, especially when he's not on the 1st PP or PK and has only really been a #1 in the latter half of his career, but he can come up with a big play when the game's on the line and his speed from the back end will only help the likes of Taylor, Lewis, Cournoyer, etc burn teams in transition even more. Whether you think he deserved it or not (being a Wings fan I definitely think he did) he won a Conn Smyth leading his team to the Cup, and he lead his team and the league in playoff scoring when the Devils won the Cup in '03. He's won everything there is to win, and with 4 Cups he can play on my team anytime. Vasko will make up a bit for the lack of physical play and to cover when he gets caught in the rush.
I think Mortson makes a decent #3, he was the best defenseman in the league in 1950 (weak crop and all, yes) and a top pairing defenseman on 4 Stanley Cup winning teams, and considering they only had 4-5 HOFers on those teams its not like he was a spare part on a dominating team. I don't think many teams in history would win 4 Cups with Iafrate on their top D pairing.
Stanowski is a lower-end #4 in my mind, but he's a defensive d-man and another top-notch skater making him a good fit for my team and partner for Mortson. He's another player with 4 Stanley Cups so he couldn't have dragged his team down that much.
I tried to make sure my defense would have great skaters to keep up with the forwards, and have guys that could move the puck well. Overall I think it has a nice blend of everything, and Hasek will hopefully be there when they falter.
I agree Niedermayer isn't an ideal #1, especially when he's not on the 1st PP or PK and has only really been a #1 in the latter half of his career, but he can come up with a big play when the game's on the line and his speed from the back end will only help the likes of Taylor, Lewis, Cournoyer, etc burn teams in transition even more. Whether you think he deserved it or not (being a Wings fan I definitely think he did) he won a Conn Smyth leading his team to the Cup, and he lead his team and the league in playoff scoring when the Devils won the Cup in '03. He's won everything there is to win, and with 4 Cups he can play on my team anytime. Vasko will make up a bit for the lack of physical play and to cover when he gets caught in the rush.
I think Mortson makes a decent #3, he was the best defenseman in the league in 1950 (weak crop and all, yes) and a top pairing defenseman on 4 Stanley Cup winning teams, and considering they only had 4-5 HOFers on those teams its not like he was a spare part on a dominating team. I don't think many teams in history would win 4 Cups with Iafrate on their top D pairing.
Stanowski is a lower-end #4 in my mind, but he's a defensive d-man and another top-notch skater making him a good fit for my team and partner for Mortson. He's another player with 4 Stanley Cups so he couldn't have dragged his team down that much.
I tried to make sure my defense would have great skaters to keep up with the forwards, and have guys that could move the puck well. Overall I think it has a nice blend of everything, and Hasek will hopefully be there when they falter.
I almost feel like Lindros would have a better shot at the hall if he had never played after the Stevens hit. Being a walking punchline for 5 years after the fact really made a lot of people forget how good he was at one point, IMO.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
And you did a good job of that. I think we basically agree about the quality of your defense. Again, considering the goalie and the makeup of the forward lines, a middling blueline that skates well and moves the puck will win you a lot of games.
One thing I will say about Hasek, however, is that his weakest skill (this is, of course, a relative statement) has always been stopping breakaways. Dom is ridiculously good at moving laterally, following the puck through traffic, making the 2nd, 3rd...27th save, making the reaction save, etc. - but he could be beaten clean one-on-one. Against a line like Taylor - Lindros - Shanahan, Hasek is pretty much the perfect goalie. Against teams that can really fly and finish in transition, your defense may need to ease off the throttle a bit.
But then, your team looks like it's designed to be a line matching team, with relatively little checking done on the top 2 lines and a wealth of defensive forwards in the bottom six. I haven't heard anything from you on this point (or perhaps I missed it), but are you planning on line matching in this series?
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
My reaction to Brooklyn is that this is a kind of controversial team. Some interesting choices, but, I need to be convinced. I just don't get this team.
Detroit on the other hand, I get. Love the mobility, and I appreciate how diverse skills are interspersed within it.
Detroit on the other hand, I get. Love the mobility, and I appreciate how diverse skills are interspersed within it.
Just wanted to address this point now that discussion has pretty much ended with respect to Heller. Zubov's voting record is similar to Heller's in that they both have a second-team selection and two third-team selections (based on HO's research). Other than that, they have rather nondescript voting records, though arguments could be made that they were both good defensemen who got little recognition. Obviously there isn't data for the voting record after the top few in the past, so you can't get hard data on it, but you can infer from the numbers and qualitative stuff. Heller's offense can be attributed to the stats, as he was the 8th highest scoring defenseman in two different decades (30's and 40's) and he had several years where he was amongst the top scoring defensemen. You can't get a great read on his defensive play but some of the quotes I've dug up about him seem to support his stature as a strong defensive defenseman:
“Heller made our team this year. We were awful at the start of the season. Heller stopped that. He seemed to organize the team. They rallied around him. It was wonderful, no fooling. That’s why were leading the league now. The answer is Heller.†– Lester Patrick on the Rangers’ huge turnaround in 41/42.
“The big difference is back of the blue line. I’ll put the Rangers on top there. Striking them at 100%, I’d make Chicago 90% on the defense and the Leafs and Boston 80%. Where the Rangers have the big edge is that if it ever comes down to the last five minutes and they’re a goal on top, they can put Heller and Coulter out there together and neither of those birds will make a mistakeâ€. - Conn Smythe, 1940.
“Ott Heller has never made either the first or second team, which is as great a mystery to four people named Smythe, Dick Irvin, Lester Patrick, and Frank Boucher as it is to you and meâ€.
And this last one stolen from BM67:
"He [Babe Pratt] nailed down a defense job on the New York Rangers' 1940 Stanley Cup winner and, teamed with defenseman Ott Heller, the two were on the ice for only 17 goals against over a 48-game schedule." - The Top 100 NHL Players Of All Time
Now I'm not trying to proclaim that he is some big steal where he went, but I do think he could justifiably go a round or two earlier and should be considered to be a strong #3.
I do agree with you on that. In an all-time context I have Horner and Day outside of the top-50 all-time, which means that in a 32 team draft they are below average #2s/above average #3s.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
These quotes hold weight with me, because they come from basically impartial sources. Praise from a guy's own coach (or hometown newspaper?) doesn't move me, especially when it appears to be essentially fishing for all-star votes. I do weigh descriptive evidence (it is necessary when dealing with old-timers), but not when it comes from someone with obvious ties to the player in question.
The point here is not really to analyze Ott Heller, but to question how we view these old time players (but especially defensemen, as we have less objective evidence on their success) in an ATD context. I'll say now that of the three I mentioned (Heller, Mortson, Wentworth), I consider Heller the best. Again, though, how good was he? His resume looks a lot like Zubov's (who is a pretty good #3), but it also resembles Gary Suter's in quite a few particulars, and I consider Suter a low-end #3 or a good #4. Split the difference, and I've got Heller as basically an average #3 defenseman, which is still good value considering where you drafted him. I don't think he's great at any one thing, but he's good at pretty much everything and has the size and speed not to be exploitable in matchups. The other two (Mortson and Wentworth) I consider low-end #3s or good #4s. More descriptive evidence on these players might improve my opinion of them, but not if it comes from their old coach or the guy they shared a locker with.
Ok...getting away from Heller, the Norris Voting project made me think a lot about how we evaluate modern defensemen. Other modern defensemen with something resembling Heller's resume include Barry Beck (7th, 7th, 6th in Norris finishes), Eric Desjardins (4th, 5th, 10th), Kevin Hatcher (4th, 6th, 7th) and Dion Phaneuf (2nd/3rd, 6th, 8th). All four of these guys are strong offensive performers with three placements in the top 8 among defensemen - which, considering differences in competitive era, is roughly equal to being a top-6 or 3rd teamer in Heller's time.
It's not so much a question of how we view old-timers, but how we compare them to modern players. Phaneuf's career has been quite short, so I can understand discounting him based on career value, but the other three had long careers. Desjardins is generally considered a solid 2nd pairing guy, but Beck and Hatcher really are not. Why? Because we know so much about their faults, perhaps too much. While we can't just assume that old-timers were all a bunch of Kevin Hatchers or Al Iafrates, I also don't think it's fair to assume that they didn't have their own weaknesses.
It is arguably the single biggest blind spot in the ATD: how to value non-Hall of Fame defensemen from a bygone era. I've got no personal vendetta against these players, but I think the ATD fashion of the moment is to credit them for their accomplishments somewhat out of proportion with the way we credit modern players.
I agree completely with you that some modern players seem to take a lot of flack because we've seen them play and there just isn't anyway to evaluate the older guys on the same level. I disagree that top-8 during the 80's/90's is equivalent to doing the same from 1930-WWII because I think that era was every bit as strong for defensemen, but that's a minor point.
Desjardins is a player that I think is a very solid #3, personally. Beck is a guy that I think would be good on a 2nd pairing if not for his injury problems. He only broke 70 games three times and averaged 56 games/season over his career. Hatcher is different from these other guys in that he was an offensive defenseman who wasn't great in his own end, and defensemen who aren't good at defense tend to drop in these things. Players like Wentworth or Heller was known as defensive defensemen first, but they also happened to put up decent points totals as well. Unfortunately Evil Speaker's excellent posts outlining defensemen scoring through the decades seems to have disappeared with the board change-over, so I can't pull up the numbers for the offense.
Heat McManus
Registered User
I think the team should stand on its own therefore I did not want to post explaining my team before the voting had ended. I can't really say how my team would stock up to the Wings because I don't know enough about a lot of the players. They were from well before my time and I am still learning about those eras. I just know, I don't see my team as being a push-over.
Being a first time GM with no co-GM I was pretty in the dark when I was invited. Also, as I stated before I had a pretty severe sinus infection at the time of my first two selections (Mahovlich 31st, Tretiak 34th).
I was unable to prepare my team concept as much as i had hoped due to work restraints and other mitigating factors so I was going on BPA. The Mahovlich pick was atrocious seeing as who I had available to me. While I am happy to have his talent, I think there were many, many better players to choose from. Tretiak, I am not overall upset about. Having one of the greatest goaltenders of all time in net is never a bad thing. I had researched Mahovlich, but not enough as I found out after drafting him how much work it would take to surround him with the right players and coach. I decided not to take too many players from the by-gone eras because in truth, I don't know as much about them. Wentworth, Tumba Johansson, Liapkin and Shack were pretty well researched so I felt good enough about them to select them.
First line is pure physical domination. Plain and simple. Blunt force trauma coming at you with a surprisingly good skill set.
Second line is possibly one of the most skilled lines in the draft. Defensively absent on the wings and suspect up the middle, it offers incredible scoring prowess. Mahovlich needs to be on this line as he should have a play-maker with him in Crosby.
My checking line is pretty damn fine, IMHO. Gelinas is a battler and underrated. Madden has been a top-3 defensive forward for almost a decade, and Nystrom had an incredible career being feisty.
I wanted some scoring on my fourth line and some grit. The fact that Johansson rarely shared the puck made me select two guys who could play without it and create room. There I found Eddie Shack and Darren McCarty. Had McCarty ended his career in 2003, he would have been an amazing pick with 3 Cups a bazillion PIMs and a heart of gold. The fact he has made such a comeback makes him an even better selection.
Housley was a bad pick. I admit it. I wanted a scoring defenseman, but with the talent on my top 2 lines i should have looked for a more balanced player. Hatcher is a good compliment to him as well.
Wentworth-Hartsburg & Hatcher-Housley may be better off Housley-Wentworth & Hatcher Hartsburg in hindsight. I also like the Wesley Liapkin combo as a strong third pairing.
My back-up tender, Osgood has won a Cup and does not boast bad career stats. I'm confident in him. My spares Fielder, Ozolinsh, and Driver (not listed) were carefully selected.
Fielder could be plugged into center at either my 2nd or 4th lines. In the event of an injury to Lindros I would be able to move Crosby to the first line and then move Fielder to the 2nd.
My biggest reach by far is Bobrov. Renowned as a player, he most likely would be known just as well as a coach had he deferred to the Soviet bureaucracy. He was known as a "players' coach" which would have worked well with Lindros, Mahovlich, and Mogilny.
I think I did well as a newby GM and will have a better showing next year.
Being a first time GM with no co-GM I was pretty in the dark when I was invited. Also, as I stated before I had a pretty severe sinus infection at the time of my first two selections (Mahovlich 31st, Tretiak 34th).
I was unable to prepare my team concept as much as i had hoped due to work restraints and other mitigating factors so I was going on BPA. The Mahovlich pick was atrocious seeing as who I had available to me. While I am happy to have his talent, I think there were many, many better players to choose from. Tretiak, I am not overall upset about. Having one of the greatest goaltenders of all time in net is never a bad thing. I had researched Mahovlich, but not enough as I found out after drafting him how much work it would take to surround him with the right players and coach. I decided not to take too many players from the by-gone eras because in truth, I don't know as much about them. Wentworth, Tumba Johansson, Liapkin and Shack were pretty well researched so I felt good enough about them to select them.
First line is pure physical domination. Plain and simple. Blunt force trauma coming at you with a surprisingly good skill set.
Second line is possibly one of the most skilled lines in the draft. Defensively absent on the wings and suspect up the middle, it offers incredible scoring prowess. Mahovlich needs to be on this line as he should have a play-maker with him in Crosby.
My checking line is pretty damn fine, IMHO. Gelinas is a battler and underrated. Madden has been a top-3 defensive forward for almost a decade, and Nystrom had an incredible career being feisty.
I wanted some scoring on my fourth line and some grit. The fact that Johansson rarely shared the puck made me select two guys who could play without it and create room. There I found Eddie Shack and Darren McCarty. Had McCarty ended his career in 2003, he would have been an amazing pick with 3 Cups a bazillion PIMs and a heart of gold. The fact he has made such a comeback makes him an even better selection.
Housley was a bad pick. I admit it. I wanted a scoring defenseman, but with the talent on my top 2 lines i should have looked for a more balanced player. Hatcher is a good compliment to him as well.
Wentworth-Hartsburg & Hatcher-Housley may be better off Housley-Wentworth & Hatcher Hartsburg in hindsight. I also like the Wesley Liapkin combo as a strong third pairing.
My back-up tender, Osgood has won a Cup and does not boast bad career stats. I'm confident in him. My spares Fielder, Ozolinsh, and Driver (not listed) were carefully selected.
Fielder could be plugged into center at either my 2nd or 4th lines. In the event of an injury to Lindros I would be able to move Crosby to the first line and then move Fielder to the 2nd.
My biggest reach by far is Bobrov. Renowned as a player, he most likely would be known just as well as a coach had he deferred to the Soviet bureaucracy. He was known as a "players' coach" which would have worked well with Lindros, Mahovlich, and Mogilny.
I think I did well as a newby GM and will have a better showing next year.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,155
- 14,477
Sorry for leading this away from the main discussion, but this is a good point. It's interesting to think about how some of these players might be viewed in 30-50 years:
- Derian Hatcher. Fifty years from now, most people will remember him as a big, tough shutdown defenseman who captained Dallas to their 1999 Stanley Cup victory. But how many people remember him as slow and undisciplined, especially post-lockout? Historical write-ups generally tend to focus on a player's best years and cover the weaker years in little detail. Ching Johnson appears to be very similar to Hatcher in style (although he's clearly the better player). It's easy to criticize Hatcher's weaknesses because we've all seen him play; Johnson was probably just as slow and undisciplined (based on what I've read) but it's tough to make such an accusation against a player I've never seen.
- Sergei Gonchar. I'm guessing his stock will soar in the next few decades. If you've never seen him play, you can make a case for him as a strong #3: he's the second highest-scoring defenseman during an eleven year period (1997-present); he finished top ten in Norris voting six times (likely seven including this year); he twice played in the Stanley Cup finals and maintained essentially the same, high level of production in the playoffs. In fifty years, will anybody remember that he was a serious defensive liability most of his career? Will they remember that (in my opinion, anyway) his on-ice contributions were always less impressive than his statistics indicated?
- Al Iafrate. If you selectively patched together quotes from three or four sources, you could make Iafrate sound like one of the most complete and underrated defensemen in the draft. Iafrate's real problems (inconsistency and indifference) will be hard to remember thirty years later.
- Adam Foote, Ken Morrow, Bob Goldham. Three identical players, but Foote always seems to go first. It's easy for us to remember a specific big hit or key blocked shot from Foote, but these details will fade over time. Foote will slide down to the Morrow/Goldham level in a few decades.
Basically, I agree with Sturm's point. It will always be easier to have a more subtle understanding of a player you've actually watched. Over time a player with "good intangibles" like Foote will fall in value and a player with "bad intangibles" like Hatcher and Gonchar will rise in value.
Last edited:
FissionFire
Registered User
What you've said is one of the main reasons I don't rate quotes from bygones eras a large step above numbers. Numbers can't tell the whole story, but I feel it's a better story than randomly cobbled together quotes. If someone presented to me all the references to, say, Lionel Hitchman from the Toronto G&M and Boston Globe for a single season, both good and bad, I'd feel more comfortable with them. I just never see negative quotes which leaves me very skeptical.
Spitfire11
Registered User
Yep, you did a good job for your first draft. I did the same thing in my first few drafts, mainly taking players I knew and was familiar with. And slowly as the drafts go by you learn more and more of these players from long ago. Guys like Lewis, Barry, Taylor, Phillips, Mortson, Tremblay, Owen, Nesterenko are all players I never even thought about taking in the previous 6 drafts I've been in. These all-time drafts have been the best experience for learning about the history of hockey.
