vecens24
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2009
- 5,002
- 1
Matt Cooke is clearly the equivalent of Dave Matthews character in Don't Mess With the Zohan:
MLD 2011 Assassination Thread
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
Matt Cooke is clearly the equivalent of Dave Matthews character in Don't Mess With the Zohan:
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
It's alright, it's not my best pick and not my worst. It was the only guy on my list and I was late with my pick. My team seems heavily underrated though. Maybe people has never heard of the Flett brothers, Zeidel or Tumba? I don't know.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Dreakmur
Registered User
Doesn't really bother me, but, even though you might not have voted for him, you caused the votes. The people that did vote for him based it on your unfair and inaccurate trashing of him in the draft thread.
Same thing happened with Cooke. He received flak, so he's screwed. Regardless of how well he was defended, people always remember the first response most.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I very well may have caused the votes. I acknowledged the next day that part of what I said was inaccurate and I clarified it much further. At that point, the "trashing" was both fair and accurate.
With that said, there was still lots of reason to believe he was a mediocre player and vote for him. I hope that the two votes he received weren't just parroting my opinion. But they could have been, yes.
Berard can play in the MLD as a PP specialist; he's not so poor that I think he should never have been taken. There would have to be a good 15 players knocked out of this draft before I'd consider him in my bottom 5.
based on the voting in this category, it appears people were much more willing to say "i know this player, and he's mediocre" as opposed to "never heard of this guy, and he wasn't sold to me either, so he sucks".
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
Did they? I didn't vote for him, but I certainly don't know who did or why they voted the way they did.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
other thoughts on the votes, particularly defensemen:
- I definitely have no problem with Joe Cooper getting some votes and making these all-star teams. However, I think that with his one 14th-place finish in all-star voting, that he is clearly behind his contemporaries Buswell, Portland, Graham, Stew Evans, Kampman, and Brydge and should have finished behind them. Cooper received six votes. Buswell received one vote (a second from me), Brydge had four, Portland had three, Graham two, Kampman one, and Evans none.
- Tex Evans was an excellent choice and got my 1st place vote on defense. However, my own Bob Armstrong has the same all-star/Norris voting record (better, actually) and should be viewed in the same light. Godfrey, their contemporary, who once received a Norris vote, doesn't look out of place on the ASTs, but should definitely be well behind both.
- 80s players: Crossman also is an OK all-star pick but I think Mike O'Connell should have finished ahead of him. Among 80s defensemen, I think Roberts and Maloney ahead of them is fair, however, I definitely do NOT think that they are the top-2 defensemen in this draft (and I had them top-2 heading into it!
) - I don't think that very much separates these four.
- Brian Campbell, the draft's sole real-life NHL AST member, should have ranked higher than he did.
- 70s players: Guevremont finished the highest among them, and deserved to. He should have been followed by Gibbs and Murdoch, but was followed by Bladon and McKenny (5 & 4 votes). Murdoch received three votes, Gibbs none. (Gary Sargent might have been the best of the bunch on a per-game level but I realize GP is a valid concern with him.)
- Forwards: I think the first team pretty much got it right on the top-6 guys. Although I would place Larouche below the Allison/Gomez/Spezza class and the Bodnar/Himes class too. Reibel made the 2nd team as a 13th forward but I'd have taken Allison, Gomez, Backstrom and a couple others over him. I don't think anyone exceptional got missed in these votes.
- bottom-six. Love the first team. I voted for every one of them. Sundstrom and Chamberlain are my favourites. Like the second team. Murphy and Craven are my faves there.
- no problem with how goalies and coaches went.
- Spares look good too. Tanti and Tippett would have been listed spares on the AST (4 & 3 votes), except around voting time they were put into the starting lineups so they were no longer eligible to be named as spares.
- I definitely have no problem with Joe Cooper getting some votes and making these all-star teams. However, I think that with his one 14th-place finish in all-star voting, that he is clearly behind his contemporaries Buswell, Portland, Graham, Stew Evans, Kampman, and Brydge and should have finished behind them. Cooper received six votes. Buswell received one vote (a second from me), Brydge had four, Portland had three, Graham two, Kampman one, and Evans none.
- Tex Evans was an excellent choice and got my 1st place vote on defense. However, my own Bob Armstrong has the same all-star/Norris voting record (better, actually) and should be viewed in the same light. Godfrey, their contemporary, who once received a Norris vote, doesn't look out of place on the ASTs, but should definitely be well behind both.
- 80s players: Crossman also is an OK all-star pick but I think Mike O'Connell should have finished ahead of him. Among 80s defensemen, I think Roberts and Maloney ahead of them is fair, however, I definitely do NOT think that they are the top-2 defensemen in this draft (and I had them top-2 heading into it!
) - I don't think that very much separates these four.- Brian Campbell, the draft's sole real-life NHL AST member, should have ranked higher than he did.
- 70s players: Guevremont finished the highest among them, and deserved to. He should have been followed by Gibbs and Murdoch, but was followed by Bladon and McKenny (5 & 4 votes). Murdoch received three votes, Gibbs none. (Gary Sargent might have been the best of the bunch on a per-game level but I realize GP is a valid concern with him.)
- Forwards: I think the first team pretty much got it right on the top-6 guys. Although I would place Larouche below the Allison/Gomez/Spezza class and the Bodnar/Himes class too. Reibel made the 2nd team as a 13th forward but I'd have taken Allison, Gomez, Backstrom and a couple others over him. I don't think anyone exceptional got missed in these votes.
- bottom-six. Love the first team. I voted for every one of them. Sundstrom and Chamberlain are my favourites. Like the second team. Murphy and Craven are my faves there.
- no problem with how goalies and coaches went.
- Spares look good too. Tanti and Tippett would have been listed spares on the AST (4 & 3 votes), except around voting time they were put into the starting lineups so they were no longer eligible to be named as spares.
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,885
- 13,680
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Smith was in my top-10 picks for defensemen heading into this, but definitely not in my actual top-10 defensemen. I wanted to get him early as an elite 3rd-pairing guy (kinda like taking Erixon early) but you grabbed him before I could.
I am ok with how it worked out because when the draft started I hadn't researched the newly discovered norris/AS voting, and now I have guys who played like Smith but earned all-star votes doing it. You guys should be glad that those guys got spread out and that they didn't all go to TDMM, because that's what would have happened!
vecens24
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2009
- 5,002
- 1
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Why should he be happy about that?
ok, everyone but you guys should be happy about that.
but in reality, you guys should be laughing either way about how it played out.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
just trying to keep a finger on the pulse of the draft here. When do you guys want the voting day for the first round to be? I originally planned on just three days (Sat, Sun, Mon) for the series, but then three of them had a delayed start and then no one said anything in them for another day. How about Thursday as a voting day, and I announce results and open the quarterfinals Friday? I leave for England on Saturday morning but having a smartphone, I'm not sure if you guys will even notice I'm gone.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
I just realized, I'm surprised I had only 5 guys on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd all star teams, but was voted as the 2nd best team of my division.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
If that's what you guys want, that's what we'll do. It's cool with me. that means I'm settled in in the UK before I have to even ask for votes. But let's shorten the rounds after that.
5 is par for the course. 14 teams, 75 players named. TDMM had 10, I had 9, a couple had 6, a bunch had 5.
both divisions were really close aside from 1st in each.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I've always liked 7 days for the first round, 5 for every round afterwards.
3 days is way too short - you get busy for a day and a half and you basically forfeit any ability to argue in detail.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I agree with those limits, although I figured the sub-ATD drafts could stand to be shortened across the board... maybe I was mistaken.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
not a single comment in this section for 18 hours? I think it's time to ask for votes, what do you think?
vecens24
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2009
- 5,002
- 1
I guess I don't see why not. Very few people are active at this point. Just go for it.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Game 5 Los Angeles Kings @ Edmonton Oilers - Edmonton leads series 3-1Wagers: 17Staked: $81,382.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 2Staked: $10,500.00Event closes
- Updated: