ATD2019 Lineup Assassination Thread

[Johnny Engine]

Coaching: Patrick is one of the best and most versatile coaches ever, so if anyone can make a weird scheme work, it's him.

First line: Lots of talent, but I really really don't like Perreault with Bobby Hull. Hull didn't work well with Mikita because both liked to hold onto the puck a lot, and doesn't that also describe Perreault? Also who plays defense here?

The Mikita-is-every-centre comparisons have gotten incredibly lazy. In the 60s, the two played for a team with very little depth and poor coaching, and they didn't find a fit. Fair enough. But who does complement Hull? In other ATD's, some GMs have received kudos for putting him with an Esposito proxy - a bigger guy who would go to the dirty areas for rebounds. But why? Esposito and Hull played regular roles for Chicago for 3 years, won absolutely nothing as a group, and then Esposito turned into a superstar after they were separated. Sound like something we should be recreating?
Hull's most famous example of positive chemistry came with Winnipeg, with Hedberg (best known for his speed) and Nilsson (best known as a playmaker), and were said to have been a bastion of European-style lane-switching hockey in North America. I see no evidence that Hull couldn't share the puck with those guys, but rather that he enjoyed the freedom to play fast and loose positionally, which makes sense given Hull was a converted centre playing the wing. Perreault, (who was right at home playing international hockey) seems like a spiritual match in that way in that he shouldn't be expected to just carry it up the middle and dish across to Hull. He can carry, Hull can carry, they go where the other isn't and they do it fast.
Which is incidentally the way they played when they did play together.
It's just a couple of games, of course. I'm not claiming to be reuniting the production line. But it's better evidence than a surface-level comparison to Mikita. And I'd privilege Scotty Bowman's impulses over what Chicago tried in the 60s.
As for defense, Mikhailov is the corner battler and puck retriever. Perreault has the responsibilities of the centre, though I won't pretend he's above average in that aspect. That's enough for a scoring line.

First pairing: Stewart is quite weak for a #2 but he fits Coffey very well

I have Stewart right in the middle of the pack for #2s but sure.

PK1: Henri Richard probably has the skillset to PK, but he almost never did in real life, so I really would prefer a more accomplished PKer (Zetterberg?) to play here. Defensemen are very good.

PK2: Defensemen seem so-so (a bit soft for an ATD PK unit?). I realize Bondra scored a boatload of SHGs in real life, but is he the right kind of guy to see major PK time at the ATD level? It's kind of like putting Lemieux or Bure there - it could work... On the second wave, he'll be able to take advantage of tired PK units at times.

Considering re-arranging the units here. As you mentioned, Zetterberg-Marshall is probably the best go-to unit, with a couple of other pairs of forwards, including a more aggressive unit with Bondra.

 

[pappyline]

The Mikita-is-every-centre comparisons have gotten incredibly lazy. In the 60s, the two played for a team with very little depth and poor coaching, and they didn't find a fit. Fair enough. But who does complement Hull? In other ATD's, some GMs have received kudos for putting him with an Esposito proxy - a bigger guy who would go to the dirty areas for rebounds. But why? Esposito and Hull played regular roles for Chicago for 3 years, won absolutely nothing as a group, and then Esposito turned into a superstar after they were separated. Sound like something we should be recreating?
Hull's most famous example of positive chemistry came with Winnipeg, with Hedberg (best known for his speed) and Nilsson (best known as a playmaker), and were said to have been a bastion of European-style lane-switching hockey in North America. I see no evidence that Hull couldn't share the puck with those guys, but rather that he enjoyed the freedom to play fast and loose positionally, which makes sense given Hull was a converted centre playing the wing. Perreault, (who was right at home playing international hockey) seems like a spiritual match in that way in that he shouldn't be expected to just carry it up the middle and dish across to Hull. He can carry, Hull can carry, they go where the other isn't and they do it fast.
Which is incidentally the way they played when they did play together.
It's just a couple of games, of course. I'm not claiming to be reuniting the production line. But it's better evidence than a surface-level comparison to Mikita. And I'd privilege Scotty Bowman's impulses over what Chicago tried in the 60s.
As for defense, Mikhailov is the corner battler and puck retriever. Perreault has the responsibilities of the centre, though I won't pretend he's above average in that aspect. That's enough for a scoring line.

I have Stewart right in the middle of the pack for #2s but sure.


Considering re-arranging the units here. As you mentioned, Zetterberg-Marshall is probably the best go-to unit, with a couple of other pairs of forwards, including a more aggressive unit with Bondra.

I don't know where people are getting this nonsense that Hull & Perreault are a bad fit. I guess they didn't watch the 1976 Canada Cup. Hull & Perreault were magic together. Lots of of lane switching similiar to the Hull/Nilsson/Hedberg line with Winnipeg.

Here is a clip from that series. hard to tell who is the centre:

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In the 1960s, Bobby Hull had a reputation as a puck hog. That reputation seems to be gone by the 1970s.

If I drafted Bobby Hull, I'd ideally want a center who was great at playing off the puck.

 

[pappyline]

In the 1960s, Bobby Hull had a reputation as a puck hog. That reputation seems to be gone by the 1970s.

If I drafted Bobby Hull, I'd ideally want a center who was great at playing off the puck.

You are the only person that calls Bobby Hull a puck hog. And you are wrong.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You are the only person that calls Bobby Hull a puck hog. And you are wrong.

It's within your rights to disregard the reporting from the 60s that effectively calls Hull a puckhog, because you did watch him play. But to call me the "only person" who calls him that is flat out incorrect.

 

[Sturminator]

Goulet - Francis is also a very strong duo offensively and good defensively too. You're right -- it's too bad that Larmer is light offensively for a second line in this because he's such a great hockey player. Goulet-Francis-Larmer is a very responsible line away from the puck for a second line, though. I'd actually consider moving Amonte up just for his speed and goal scoring abilty. With a guy like Francis feeding him he'd do ok.

And that first line is going to light people up.. damn..

iirc, a lot of Goulet's offensive value during his career came on the power play. I don't see him as being all that great offensively on a 2nd line at only 20 teams, but perhaps I am wrong. Would need to take another look at his ES numbers compared to contemporaries. One argument in his favor is that his real-life center during his prime was generally Dale Hunter, and Quebec's RWs at the time were always kinda trash, so he didn't get a ton of help at ES.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't know where people are getting this nonsense that Hull & Perreault are a bad fit. I guess they didn't watch the 1976 Canada Cup. Hull & Perreault were magic together. Lots of of lane switching similiar to the Hull/Nilsson/Hedberg line with Winnipeg.

Here is a clip from that series. hard to tell who is the centre:

By the way, thanks for posting this. I know of the Hull-Esposito-Lafleur line; didn't realize he played any notable amount with Perreault.

And you're right in bringing up the Hull/Nilsson/Hedberg line - if Johnny gets that version of Hull, he can play with anybody. Kudos to Hull for becoming a well-rounded player in the second decade of his career; not every superstar can say that for sure.

 

[pappyline]

It's within your rights to disregard the reporting from the 60s that effectively calls Hull a puckhog, because you did watch him play. But to call me the "only person" who calls him that is flat out incorrect.

And we need some context. Who are these other people? Sources please.

 

[pappyline]

By the way, thanks for posting this. I know of the Hull-Esposito-Lafleur line; didn't realize he played any notable amount with Perreault.

And you're right in bringing up the Hull/Nilsson/Hedberg line - if Johnny gets that version of Hull, he can play with anybody. Kudos to Hull for becoming a well-rounded player in the second decade of his career; not every superstar can say that for sure.

Hull-Esposito-Lafleur was never a line in the 1976 Canada Cup. It was Hull-Espopsito-Dionne until Espo got benched and was replaced by Perreault.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And we need some context. Who are these other people? Sources please.

The sources have been provided many times. Glenn Hall is one of them.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hull-Esposito-Lafleur was never a line in the 1976 Canada Cup. It was Hull-Espopsito-Dionne until Espo got benched and was replaced by Perreault.

Thanks

 

[pappyline]

The sources have been provided many times. Glenn Hall is one of them.

That is likely the only one if he even actually said that. If I remember right that is the article you trot out where Glen blamed everyone but himself for Chicago's playoff failures.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Portage Lakes Hockey Club

Coach Al Arbour

Bert Olmstead (A) - Norm Ullman - Bernie Geoffrion
John Leclair - Denis Savard - Didier Pitre
Dean Prentice - Jeremy Roenick - Joe Mullen
Joe Klukay - Pit Lepine - Floyd Curry
Venjamin Alexandrov - Ivan Hlinka - Konstantin Loktev

Denis Potvin (C) - Ken Reardon
Marcel Pronovost - Brad Park (A)
Mike Ramsey - Art Duncan
Pat Egan

Terry Sawchuk
Harry Lumley​

PP1: Olmstead - Ullman - Geoffrion - Potvin - Duncan
PP2: Leclair - Savard - Pitre - Roenick - Park

PK1: Klukay - Curry - Potvin - Ramsey
PK2: Prentice - Lepine - Park - Reardon

Estimated min per game, forwards

	ES TOI	PP TOI	PK TOI	Total TOI
Olmstead	15	4	0	19
Ullman	15	4	0	19
Geoffrion	15	4	0	19
Leclair	14	3	0	17
Savard	14	3	0	17
Pitre	14	3	0	17
Prentice	11	0	3	14
Roenick	11	3	0	14
Mullen	11	0	0	11
Klukay*	6	0	4	10
Lepine*	6	0	3	9
Curry*	6	0	4	10

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

*Shutdown line. Their TOI time can be increased at the expense of 3-d and/or 2-nd line' time

Estimated min per game, defencemen

	ES TOI	PP TOI	PK TOI	Total TOI
Potvin	17	4	4	25
Reardon	17	0	3	20
Pronovost	17	0	0	17
Park	17	3	3	23
Ramsey	11	0	4	15
Duncan	11	4	0	15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Coaching - I have Arbour in the 4-6 range of coaches here; most others have him higher I think. With the possible exception of your 2nd line, this is a good Arbour team.

First line - Arbour liked going power-on-power in matchups, and this is a pretty good matchup line. Definitely a bit light on the offense for a scoriong line at the ATD with only Geoffrion really standing out - that's what happens when you wait so long to draft a forward. Still, the line is pretty well balanced, with Olmstead helping to make up for Ullman's mediocre (for a 1st line ATD center!) playmaking.

Second line - Kind of like the first line in that they are well-constucted, but a bit meh on the talent level. LeClair is a great 2nd line cornerman of course. Savard and Pitre each seem like they should be the 3rd most talented guy on a scoring line with only 20 teams.

Third line - I love Roenick as a 3rd line center for a team that doesn't need a 3rd line to take big time defensive duties. His wingers are up to the task. Having a 3rd line that is pretty much right in the middle of offense and defense does put a bit of pressure on the Ullman line to play more two-way hockey.

Fourth line - Lepine actually has the ability to chip in goals if played with the correct wingers - these aren't those wingers. Won't score much at all, but very very good defensively.

Top 4 defense - you obviously constructed this as a 4-some, so I'll review it as such. Potvin and Park are both awesome at what they do, obviously. Are Pronovost and Reardon the right partners? My read on both Pronvovost and Reardon is that they were high-impact players, both of whom really went looking to get involved in the physical game, but maybe weren't totally sound as the stay-at-home partners that players like Potvin and Park ideally would have. Is that wrong? Either way, I'd try to figure out a way for Pronovost to see at least as many minutes as Reardon, who probably isn't a 20 minute man at this level. Despite what seems like nothing but complaints, I do think this is quite the talented bunch, and they could give teams with softer forwards fits.

Bottom pairing - Typical all-defense/all-offense pairing that works fine.

Goaltending - Obviously a strength of your team. Sawchuk has been great value for a couple drafts now.

Powerplay - your emphasis on defensemen kind of shines through here - you have 4 guys (Potvin, Park, Duncan, and yes, Geoffrion) all of whom would look great on the points of PP1. Up front, you have to use Geoffrion there, which is fine, but Ullman and especially Olmstead aren't all that great on PP1. How often did Roenick play the point in real life? I know Pitre can do it.

PK - Two pretty strong units. Klukay did take the faceoffs for the Klukay-Metz duo right?

Overall: Excellent backend built around Potvin, Park, and Sawchuk. Emphasizing your backend so much does leave you just a bit light on forward talent for line 1 and PP2, but the lines are well-constructed.

 

[Namba 17]

Coaching - I have Arbour in the 4-6 range of coaches here; most others have him higher I think. With the possible exception of your 2nd line, this is a good Arbour team.

First line - Arbour liked going power-on-power in matchups, and this is a pretty good matchup line. Definitely a bit light on the offense for a scoriong line at the ATD with only Geoffrion really standing out - that's what happens when you wait so long to draft a forward. Still, the line is pretty well balanced, with Olmstead helping to make up for Ullman's mediocre (for a 1st line ATD center!) playmaking.

Second line - Kind of like the first line in that they are well-constucted, but a bit meh on the talent level. LeClair is a great 2nd line cornerman of course. Savard and Pitre each seem like they should be the 3rd most talented guy on a scoring line with only 20 teams.

Third line - I love Roenick as a 3rd line center for a team that doesn't need a 3rd line to take big time defensive duties. His wingers are up to the task. Having a 3rd line that is pretty much right in the middle of offense and defense does put a bit of pressure on the Ullman line to play more two-way hockey.

Fourth line - Lepine actually has the ability to chip in goals if played with the correct wingers - these aren't those wingers. Won't score much at all, but very very good defensively.

Top 4 defense - you obviously constructed this as a 4-some, so I'll review it as such. Potvin and Park are both awesome at what they do, obviously. Are Pronovost and Reardon the right partners? My read on both Pronvovost and Reardon is that they were high-impact players, both of whom really went looking to get involved in the physical game, but maybe weren't totally sound as the stay-at-home partners that players like Potvin and Park ideally would have. Is that wrong? Either way, I'd try to figure out a way for Pronovost to see at least as many minutes as Reardon, who probably isn't a 20 minute man at this level. Despite what seems like nothing but complaints, I do think this is quite the talented bunch, and they could give teams with softer forwards fits.

Bottom pairing - Typical all-defense/all-offense pairing that works fine.

Goaltending - Obviously a strength of your team. Sawchuk has been great value for a couple drafts now.

Powerplay - your emphasis on defensemen kind of shines through here - you have 4 guys (Potvin, Park, Duncan, and yes, Geoffrion) all of whom would look great on the points of PP1. Up front, you have to use Geoffrion there, which is fine, but Ullman and especially Olmstead aren't all that great on PP1. How often did Roenick play the point in real life? I know Pitre can do it.

PK - Two pretty strong units. Klukay did take the faceoffs for the Klukay-Metz duo right?

Overall: Excellent backend built around Potvin, Park, and Sawchuk. Emphasizing your backend so much does leave you just a bit light on forward talent for line 1 and PP2, but the lines are well-constructed.

Thank you very much for the review, @TheDevilMadeMe. I'll review your team later.
I have only one serious objection - I think, you underestimate Ullman. That's a link to an even strength VxV topic: Even-strength VsX. Ullman is 16 all time and 8th among C's. Off course, it doesn't include before 1960 players, but it's still elite numbers. He has better ES offense than Henry Richard, who is known for his ES play. Ullman is better offensively than Gordie Howe, Trottier, Bathgate, Beliveau etc. I believe, that he is a very strong 1-st line C no matter how many teams there are in the ATD. As for his playmaking abilities, he has the following assists finishes: 4, 5, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10. 9 top-10 assists finishes is pretty strong, I think. There are better playmakers, off course, but he is solid enough in this role.

 

[Johnny Engine]

In the 1960s, Bobby Hull had a reputation as a puck hog. That reputation seems to be gone by the 1970s.

If I drafted Bobby Hull, I'd ideally want a center who was great at playing off the puck.

Of his introduction to the Swedes in 1974, he said
"It was a new lease on life," commented Hull. "I finally found a couple of kids who could play the game the way I wanted to play it."

Which suggests that he felt something lacking in his previous linemates, including Mikita (who on a very surface-level reading should have been able to play like the Swedes), and Esposito (who is at very least good at "playing off the puck" in one sense, if not a good defensive player).

To me the answer lies in the level of freedom the forwards are afforded in the offensive zone and moving the puck up ice. Hull doesn't want to make a beeline up the left side with his centre carrying it until he's open. No one's asking him to do that.

There really isn't any positive evidence that Hull should be an elevated version of himself with a centre who doesn't want the puck much. Just that one specific centre in the sixties wasn't a match.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Thank you very much for the review, @TheDevilMadeMe. I'll review your team later.
I have only one serious objection - I think, you underestimate Ullman. That's a link to an even strength VxV topic: Even-strength VsX. Ullman is 16 all time and 8th among C's. Off course, it doesn't include before 1960 players, but it's still elite numbers. He has better ES offense than Henry Richard, who is known for his ES play. Ullman is better offensively than Gordie Howe, Trottier, Bathgate, Beliveau etc. I believe, that he is a very strong 1-st line C no matter how many teams there are in the ATD. As for his playmaking abilities, he has the following assists finishes: 4, 5, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10. 9 top-10 assists finishes is pretty strong, I think. There are better playmakers, off course, but he is solid enough in this role.

The Ullman overrating just turned Super Saiyen.

 

[Namba 17]

Wanted to do bios of Quenneville and MacKay before posting the team, but ran out of time and need to put something up:

New Jersey Swamp Devils

Coach: Joel Quenneville

Alex Delvecchio - Newsy Lalonde (C)- Helmuts Balderis
Reg Noble - Bill Cowley - Maurice Richard (A)
Bun Cook - Mickey MacKay - Ace Bailey
Tony Leswick- Guy Carbonneau - Vic Stasiuk

Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert
Babe Siebert (A) - Harry Cameron
Frank Patrick - Alex Pietrangelo

Dominik Hasek
Hap Holmes

Spares: Russell Bowie (C), Bobby Bauer (RW), Todd Bertuzzi (LW/RW), Kevin Hatcher (D)​

PP1: Bill Cowley - Newsy Lalonde - Maurice Richard - Harry Cameron - Alex Delvecchio
PP2: Bun Cook - Mickey MacKay - Helmuts Balderis - Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert

PK1: Guy Carbonneau - Tony Leswick - Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert
PK2: Mickey MacKay - Ace Bailey - Babe Siebert - Alex Pietrangelo​

Style: Attacking team with a defensive conscience. All 6 defensemen are capable of moving the puck up ice, secure in the knowledge that if they get caught, they have the best ever at stopping odd-man rushes. This is helped by the fact that the Swamp Devils have a LH and RH shot playing together at all times - ES, SH, PP.

Forwards estimated TOI

Player	ES	PP	SH	Total
Alex Delvecchio	15	4*		19
Newsy Lalonde	14	4		18
Helmuts Balderis	14	3		17
Reg Noble	15		1	16
Bill Cowley	14	4		18
Maurice Richard	16	4		20
Bun Cook	11	3	1	15
Mickey MacKay	11	3	2	16
Ace Bailey	11		2	13
Tony Leswick	5		4	9
Guy Carbonneau	7		4	11
Vic Stasiuk	5			5
Total	138	25*	14	177*

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Guy Carbonneau will take extra shifts for defensive zone draws. Richard will see the occasional extra shift when trailing. *Delvecchio plays the point of the first PP.

Defensemen estimated TOI

Player	ES	PP	SH	Total
Duncan Keith	18	2	4	24
Earl Seibert	18	2	4	24
Babe Seibert	16	1	3	20
Harry Cameron	16	5	0	21
Frankm Patrick	12	0	0	12
Alex Pietrangelo	12	0	3	15
Total	92	10*	14	120

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Alex Delvecchio - Newsy Lalonde (C)- Helmuts Balderis
9,5 - 10 out of 10.
Balderis used to be the main man of his line in both national and league teams, but I don't think it will be such a problem for him or his partners. I'd also prefer more two-way C, but it's not the main thing. What I, probably, like little less is that Delvecchio has to be the main defense and board/corners man and I am not sure, who will play in the slot here. If Lalonde was great in this part of the game, I'd give it 10/10, if it's once again Alex, it's 9,5/10. Overall very good line, talent is there and I like the way you constructed it.

Reg Noble - Bill Cowley - Maurice Richard
9,5/10. Everything is fine and Richard as 2nd line player makes your opponents life much harder. But once again you'll require too much from your LW, to my mind - defense, boards, corners. And what about slot as well?

Bun Cook - Mickey MacKay - Ace Bailey
10/10. I really like it. Great balance in everything. This line will be good in all zones.

Tony Leswick- Guy Carbonneau - Vic Stasiuk
9/10 I don't get what Stasiuk is doing here. He won't increase scoring of this line, but he will sufficiently decrease its defense. He will bring grit, but I'm not sure it's what his partners really need here. Probably, i don't see something. Leswick - Carbo is good combo defensively; they won't score many, but, I guess, it's not what they are taken here for.

Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert
9,5-10/10. Seibert is, probably, a little weak #1 in this draft. Other, than that, it's a good 1st pair.

Babe Siebert (A) - Harry Cameron
9-9,5/10
Siebert had a little too short career as a defenseman and I'm not sure they match perfectly one another. I'd probably, tried to find a little more defensively oriented partner for both. It's not bad pair, that's why I marked them pretty high, but it's not ideal.

Frank Patrick - Alex Pietrangelo
8,5/10.
Frank Patrick had too short career as well and Pietrangelo is pretty weak for #6 in this draft for my taste. I'm not sure both were that good defensively as well.

Dominik Hasek
Hap Holmes
10/10
I'm too big fun of Hasek Your problems with defense are not the ones he can't solve.

PP1: Bill Cowley - Newsy Lalonde - Maurice Richard - Harry Cameron - Alex Delvecchio
9,5/10
I'm not sure Cameron and Delvecchio belongs to #1 PP in this ATD. Others are great

PP2: Bun Cook - Mickey MacKay - Helmuts Balderis - Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert
9,5/10 Bun Cook is questionable. Was Keith that good PP d-man?

​

PK1: Guy Carbonneau - Tony Leswick - Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert
9,5/10 I don't like Keith as PK1 member here.

PK2: Mickey MacKay - Ace Bailey - Babe Siebert - Alex Pietrangelo
8 - 8,5/10. IIRC only Bailey has some value as PKer here.

Coach: Joel Quenneville
Very good coach. I don't see big problems between him and your roster.

 

[Namba 17]

The Ullman overrating just turned Super Saiyen.

I mean his ES offense numbers are better.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The Ullman overrating just turned Super Saiyen.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the review -

Alex Delvecchio - Newsy Lalonde (C)- Helmuts Balderis
9,5 - 10 out of 10.
Balderis used to be the main man of his line in both national and league teams, but I don't think it will be such a problem for him or his partners. I'd also prefer more two-way C, but it's not the main thing. What I, probably, like little less is that Delvecchio has to be the main defense and board/corners man and I am not sure, who will play in the slot here. If Lalonde was great in this part of the game, I'd give it 10/10, if it's once again Alex, it's 9,5/10. Overall very good line, talent is there and I like the way you constructed it.

Thanks. I actually have Delvecchio as the main defensive presence, Lalonde as the main board worker/corner guy. Lalonde was a Messier-like physical beast who ran around the ice looking for physical engagements (without Messier's two-way game, however). It's why I actually don't think Lalonde is as hard to build around as other shoot-first centers: He at least provides the physical play a line needs.

Reg Noble - Bill Cowley - Maurice Richard
9,5/10. Everything is fine and Richard as 2nd line player makes your opponents life much harder. But once again you'll require too much from your LW, to my mind - defense, boards, corners. And what about slot as well?

This, on the other hand, is the line that relies on the LW to do all the dirty work all over the ice. Not the way I planned it originally, but I kept missing out on getting strong playmaking centers at good value until zero-defense Cowley came along.

Bun Cook - Mickey MacKay - Ace Bailey
10/10. I really like it. Great balance in everything. This line will be good in all zones.

Tony Leswick- Guy Carbonneau - Vic Stasiuk
9/10 I don't get what Stasiuk is doing here. He won't increase scoring of this line, but he will sufficiently decrease its defense. He will bring grit, but I'm not sure it's what his partners really need here. Probably, i don't see something. Leswick - Carbo is good combo defensively; they won't score many, but, I guess, it's not what they are taken here for.

I see Stasiuk as a bit of a two-way physical presence who can chip in a few points here and there with Tony Leswick. I basically wanted a well-rounded RW. If I need a pure shutdown line, I could always switch Bailey (who can also be Leswick's playmaker) and Stasiuk.

Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert
9,5-10/10. Seibert is, probably, a little weak #1 in this draft. Other, than that, it's a good 1st pair.

Babe Siebert (A) - Harry Cameron
9-9,5/10
Siebert had a little too short career as a defenseman and I'm not sure they match perfectly one another. I'd probably, tried to find a little more defensively oriented partner for both. It's not bad pair, that's why I marked them pretty high, but it's not ideal.

This actually fits into my Hasek-built defense - I WANT all my defensemen to be able to chip in offensively, even at the expense of creating more work for Hasek. If I didn't have Hasek, I would have picked a more defensive partner for Cameron. Siebert seems pretty evenly balanced between offense and defense for me.

Frank Patrick - Alex Pietrangelo
8,5/10.
Frank Patrick had too short career as well and Pietrangelo is pretty weak for #6 in this draft for my taste. I'm not sure both were that good defensively as well.

I think I have an above-average 2nd pairing (and Hasek!), so I waited a bit longer for the bottom pairing. Agree that nothing is special about these guys, but I think they are worthy. Pietrangelo was picked mainly as he is arguably the best penalty killing defensemen of his generation (only longevity prevents him from being a great 1st PK option here). But he can also provide some offense at even strength, which, again, was important to me for my blueline playing in front of Hasek.

I also tend to like high peak - low longevity guys on my bottom pairing - in my fantasy world, they will provide higher level play for fewer minutes.

PP1: Bill Cowley - Newsy Lalonde - Maurice Richard - Harry Cameron - Alex Delvecchio
9,5/10
I'm not sure Cameron and Delvecchio belongs to #1 PP in this ATD. Others are great

Cameron's offensive stats are similar to Sprague Cleghorn or Georges Boucher. He's not elite at his role, but if he doesn't belong on a top PP, then who from his era does? Anecdotally, he was praised for his shot (apparently he could curve a shot) and is right-handed next to left handed Delvecchio. I definitely think the forwards on my top PP are better than the "defensemen" though.

PP2: Bun Cook-Mickey MacKay - Helmuts Balderis - Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert
9,5/10 Bun Cook is questionable. Was Keith that good PP d-man?

Cook's VsX score in then 70s (albeit playing with great linemates) makes him ok as the worst member of the unit. I think he can do some net front stuff. Keith's PP career was very up and down, I see him as inconsistent on the PP at the ATD level, as well. I like ending the PP with my top pairing Keith-Seibert together, as it aids the transition to even-strength.

​

PK1: Guy Carbonneau - Tony Leswick - Duncan Keith - Earl Seibert
9,5/10 I don't like Keith as PK1 member here.

I mean... Keith is playing the role he played here for a semi-dynasty. I agree that he is the weakest member of the unit though.

PK2: Mickey MacKay - Ace Bailey - Babe Siebert - Alex Pietrangelo
8 - 8,5/10. IIRC only Bailey has some value as PKer here.

This is the only part of your review that I mostly disagree with. Hard to know how any early player was at penalty killing specifically, but MacKay's defensive play was praised all over - supposedly he even mentored Frank Nighbor. Siebert was a two-way player, who was one of the most physically strong men of his era, so I think he could be a good crease clearer.

As for Pietrangelo, penalty killing is the main reason why I drafted him.

From 2017:

"And over the last six-plus seasons Pietrangelo has clocked more minutes on the penalty kill than any league D-man.

Penalty killing is hard work, and Pietrangelo is always up for it. He never flinches at the challenge of being assigned to defend the opponent’s top player or No. 1 line. Since Pietrangelo’s first full season (2010-2011) the Blues are the best in the league at terminating the other side’s power play, with a kill rate of 85 percent. And the Note has given up only 2.33 goals per game over that time, making them the second stingiest team in the league behind the LA Kings.

The strict goal prevention wouldn’t be possible without the omnipresent Pietrangelo logging a prolific number of minutes, shutting down skilled forwards, defusing short-handed emergencies, and transitioning the puck into the offensive zone."
Blues Defenseman Alex Pietrangelo Was Already Great...Now He's Even Greater - 101Sports.com

Honestly, this was somewhat news to me when I read it - maybe I should have watched more Blues games!