Esposito was slow, not particularly good defensively, and he was at his best when his linemates were the guys who went to the corners, but he wasn't exactly offense-only. In particular, he was excellent at faceoffs and was great at grinding in front of the goal (though I guess you can argue that the later is basically an offensive skill, it's still a form of "toughness")
It's easiest if I quote the section on Esposito from the "player's intangibles" thread on HOH:
PHIL ESPOSITO
Best on faceoffs | 3rd | 1974
Best on faceoffs | 3rd | 1981
Best shot | 3rd | 1971
Best shot | T-1st | 1974
Best stickhandler | 1st | 1971
Most dangerous near goal | 1st | 1971
Most dangerous near goal | 1st | 1974
Most dangerous near goal | 2nd | 1976
Smartest player | 2nd | 1971
Smartest player | 4th | 1974
Esposito is sometimes called a "power forward" by people who have a loose definition of the word. His power was basically the ability to win the faceoff and power his way to the front of the net, where he'd score or set up a linemate.
The Soviets in particular had problems with him:
Quotes from
Phil Esposito was the Mario Lemieux of '72. Bruins ace was a scoring machine for Team Canada"]
Face-offs would be the "few intangibles" I was talking about.
I see "Big Phil" physically overpowering someone like Turgeon or Bowie if they are put in a situation where they have to check him.
First of all, if they actually went head to head, neither line would be "checking".
If they got into a one-on-one battle, Esposito would have a size and strength advantage, but how many battles would they actually have? They'd drop the puck for the face-off, and that's probably the last time they'd see each other.
Phil Esposito was known for taking very long shifts in reality, often cycling through more than one set of wingers. Part of that was lack of disciplined coaching (I'm not a fan of Boston's coaching staff in the 70s in case you can't tell), but I think it shows that he can certainly handle the occasional long shift or double shift here.
From the same article:
From
another article by the same author discussing the MVP of the full Summit Series:
I didn't say Esposito couldn't play long shifts. I said he wouldn't be a good match with Kovalchuk and Alfredsson.
The reason he could take long shifts was because he was a lazy player, and he relied on his linemates to do all the dirty work. He needs linemates who will do that.
Phil Esposito is widely considered the best player from either team in the 1972 Summit Series, and his regular linemates for the last 4 games were J.P. Parise and Yvon Cournoyer - Cashman only played 2 games before being benched due to bad penalties. So I think an occasional shift with Alfredsson and Kovalchuk will be fine. Edit: Esposito centered Bobby Hull and Marcel Dionne (who was playing RW) in the 1976 Canada Cup, but he was a bit past his prime by then and wasn't as dominant.
It's not just Alfredsson and Kovalchuk - I see Esposito being given some time with all the lower lines (particularly for offensive zone draws) to throw your team off and get favorable matchups. This is consistent with how Sather used Gretzky.
I just based it off you minutes chart, and you comment that he'd be taking Novy's ice time.
I don't think my top line is entirely all-out offense. George Armstrong was a very good defensive player, with only his poor skating keeping him from being a great one. You're right that there will be an occasional odd-man rush going the other way - that's why I really like Bill White on the top unit - he is that rare combination of very long reach, good skating, and top notch defensive smarts that is the ideal skill set against odd man rushes. And the rushes go both ways - Paul Coffey has his faults, but he is arguably the single greatest transition player of all-time (Bobby Orr is obviously the other one in that conversation).
You didn't build it with all-out offensive guys, but it will be playing an all-out offensive style. With Esposito at center, you have to do that. Both Abel and Armstrong will spend all their offensive time behind the goal line and in the corners, while Esposito will be the high guy. If the puck turns over, your first back-checker is Esposito, which basically means you have no back-checker.
Armstrong is a great defensive player, but a lot of that is based of positioning to compensate for lack of speed. If he's coming from the corner, he'll never catch up. Abel has more speed, but he's still coming from too far behind the play. Moreover, they will be doing all the work in a grinding, demanding style, and if they are going to be doing all the back-checking too, they are going to wear down.
In order to keep Abel and Armstrong in good defensive position, you either have to send Esposito into the corner, or you have to work a 1-man cycle. Either way, that will greatly reduce the units offensive impact.
You're right that Seibert and Stuart are a good matchup against Esposito for you - I don't think anybody can "handle" Esposito in the slot, but those two are as good as any (short of Larry Robinson - Rod Langway) to keep up with him there. The thing is, you are heavily dependent on getting the matchups you want, as I see Esposito and friends absolutely dominating Gonchar or Liapkin down low. I get why you drafted both Gonchar and Liapkin - for how good those two are on the PP, you got them at great value. But at even strength, they have their issues, and they have those issues without having nearly the upside of a Paul Coffey.
I absolutely think that Sergei Gonchar is good enough to deserve second pairing minutes here, but if you draft him, you want to use him in as offensive a role as possible, meaning you want a "safe" bottom pairing. But Yuri Liapkin is another guy you don't really want to give a big defensive role to, and he's on your bottom pairing.
Sather, being so predictable with his lines, makes it very easy to get he match-ups I want, even if Tarasov isn't a big match-up guy.
Even on the road, we'll get a lot of the match-ups we want. Face-off in our end, out comes Seibert and Stuart.... followed by exactly who we want them matched against. Face-off in your end, out comes either the Gonchar or Liapkin units.... followed by somebody other than the unit they'd have trouble with down low.
Neither Goncahr nor Liapkin will be deliberately used in defensive situations, but obviously hockey is unpredictable, and sometimes weird things happen to even the best designed plans. That's why I paired Gonchar with Bob Goldham and Liapkin with Rod Seiling. Even when they do get stuck in defensive spots, they have a partner who can do some of the heavy lifting there - especially Goldham.
I agree that Gonchar and Liapkin are guys who will struggle if they get stuck down low on the cycle - though anybody who reads the Gonchar bio will know he is a lot better defensively than he gets credit for. The thing is, though, that defensemen with skill help ensure that the puck doesn't end up down low. Defensemen that can get to loose pucks and make a good outlet pass prevent the cycle from even getting started.
Gonchar and Liapkin may struggle on the cycle, but they are precisely the skilled guys who are going to make sure your cycle doesn't get going nearly as much as you want it to.
Your team isn't on the cycle just because you want them to be. You have to get it there first, and that's not always an easy task, especially against skilled defensemen or great puck-handling goalies.
