ATD Draft Summary [Archive]

Hockey Outsider

11-01-2007, 08:11 PM

This should be fun. Good idea for a thread.

Biggest Steal of the draft
- Bill Cowley at 144. Two-time Hart winner, top ten scorer eight times. A dominant playmaker who will make his linemates better.
- Tommy Gorman at 562. I realize that he's not an ideal fit for several teams, but how is he the 24th coach taken (after Lindy Ruff and Ted Nolan, among others)? Simply one of the best defensive coaches of all-time.
- Roy Worters at 563. Won the Hart in 1929 and was a two-time all-star (almost certainly would have been an all-star in '29 as well). Led the league in GAA twice (runner-up once) playing for some bad defensive teams.

Biggest Reach of the draft
- I agree with EB here. Butch Goring simply wasn't talented enough offensively to be a #1 centre.
- Steve Smith on the top defense pair. I realize he'll be used as a complement to Leetch, but I'm not sure that he can handle so many minutes against opponents' best players. Smith is good defensively, but not good enough to consistently hold down the fort for Leetch (who is underrated defensively but still takes a lot of risks).

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft
- Not a pick, but a trade. Laperriere re-unites the French Connection line. Pappyline makes some good choices with the selections he receives, but the highest pick is Toppazzini.
- Twice for the same GM. Nice to see Laperriere re-unite Secord, Savard and Larmer. This is one of the best third lines in the draft. I would have taken Secord had he been available at 491.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft
- Hate to keep picking on him, but Pete Mahovlich at 242 was way too early. To his credit, he does have a lot of positives (playoff experience, size, being a LW), but his stats are really inflated due to his team and era.
- VanIslander, I'm surprised you took Andreychuk when Kerr was still available. They're very similar players, but Kerr was much better in his prime.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft
- Marty Barry at 278. He wasn't even picked in ATD #6 and went #383 in ATD #7. Has to be one of the most underrated players ever. Won a retro Conn Smythe; led the playoffs in scoring twice; top ten scorer six times; one year as a Hart finalist; known for great work ethic and durability.

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft
- Zdeno Chara at 264 is still too high, but he got picked at 178 and 182 the last two times. Even as recently as ATD 7, Chara was taken ahead of guys like Ching Johnson, Bill White and Eric Desjardins.

A player you've discovered in this draft
- Cy Wentworth. I was all set to take him at 340, but BM67 took him at 337. Wenworth was rated the best defensive player of the decade and led the playoffs in scoring one year.

Most underrated player taken
- Hard to call him underrated, but the lack of respect for Johnny Bucyk is puzzling. How does he go at 96 and 101? Bucyk may have won some Byngs, but he was still a tough, grinder forward who was one of the best at gathering lose pucks along the boards or in the crease. He played with truly awful linemates for most of his career but still finished in or just outside of the top ten scorers most of his career (before Orr arrived). Was a five-time all-star at LW if we include third teams.

Most overrated player taken
- Here's an unpopular opinion. I think that Vlad Konstantinov is a bit overrated (possibly because he retired in tragic circumstances, and possibly because we've all watched him play). I'm surprised he was taken in the 5th during the last two drafts. I don't understand why he's always taken ahead of Johnson, Howell and Reardon, among others.

Favourite line of the draft
- This is almost unfair. How could any Habs fan not choose MXD's top line?

Best assembled line of the draft
- Hard to beat GBC's top line. Great mix of speed, stickhandling ability and strong playoff performances. Neely provides the much-needed toughness while the Bentleys should have incredible chemistry.
- Arrbez's second line is also well-assembled. Klukay makes the room while Oates and Hull will score at will. Klukay is one of the best defensive wingers in the draft will Oates' defensive game has always been underrated.

Worst assembled line of the draft
- Seventieslord, your top line has three great players but I just don't see them working together in real life. Dionne, Denneny and Stewart were all primarily goal-scorers; the latter two appear to have been surprisingly weak playmakers given their roles on their teams. Three players with a shoot-first mentality won't work. Stewart and Denneny were also apparently terribly slow skaters, which isn't what you want on the top line. Your forwards have good potential but the current top line is just too slow and shooter-heavy.

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft
- I read about Bullet Joe Simpson's encounter with an elephant, which was pretty amusing. Guys, don't get drunk near a circus.

VanIslander

11-01-2007, 08:25 PM

Biggest blunder selection of the draft
- VanIslander, I'm surprised you took Andreychuk when Kerr was still available. They're very similar players, but Kerr was much better in his prime.
Kerr had five (5) great seasons - his only full seasons - and played less than 700 NHL games. Andreychuk became quite disciplined at backchecking and developed leadership qualities as well (not to mention the chemistry he had with Gilmour). I thought of Kerr as a phenomenal fourth liner in an all-time context to sub when needed (or when could) or visa versa, could play on a top line only if a very capable reliable fill-in was drafted.

(I'll later edit this post to flesh out my response to this thread's categories.)

God Bless Canada

11-01-2007, 11:44 PM

A request: Can we put team evaluations in this thread, too? That way, we don't have to go through extensive essays on the main page. (And with long-winded guys like me chiming in all the time [I promise, I won't evaluate every team this draft], those evaluations do become essays).

Anyways, on to my evaluations:
Biggest Steal of the draft: The one that stands out to me the most is Frank Boucher going to Guelph at 108. If we didn't get Bentley at 67, we were going to pick Boucher. The four centres on our list at that point were Bentley, Kennedy, Apps and Boucher (in that order). The fact that Boucher lasted to 108 shocked me. One of the best playmaking centres ever, and very reliable defensively.

Biggest Reach of the draft: If we're talking about a guy playing out of role, Goring probably tops the list (although Murphy can still make changes). This might be one of those "wait until everything shakes out" categories. Petr Svoboda and Al Iafrate on Dartmouth's second pairing is also a big reach. Svoboda's a 6/7 d-man, IMO, and I'm not a fan of Iafrate at all. Too inconsistent. A flake.

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft: If HO wants to applaud the reunion of the French Connection and the Party Line (is that what they were actually called? I can't see that fitting with the ultra-quiet Larmer), then I'll applaud the Eagle for reuniting the well-rounded Kraut Line.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft: I think I can forget about VCL/Tricolere's support with this one, but I'll say their first two picks. raleh and I were saying "Imagine picking at 28 and 29, and getting two of Hall, Lindsay and Trottier." Jagr and Brodeur just didn't do it for me.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft: One stands out: Norm Ullman. I think he's a top 100 player of all-time. I never understand how players like Sundin and Modano go ahead of him, other than a modern bias. He's still a steal at 139, but at least he's not going at 200-something.

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft: There's many modern players who fit this bill. Just thinking of one? Joe Thornton

A player you've discovered in this draft: Don't know if there is one, but some of BM's west coast pro players are impressive. Never heard of Lloyd Cook, either.

Most underrated player taken: I'm going to say Sweeney Schriner. Not many offensive LWs out there with his portfolio. 173rd overall? Way too late. Ratelle continues to go much too late.

Most overrated player taken: Pavel Bure. No-brainer. A liability in the locker room, and when the puck wasn't on his stick. Explosive, gifted, but a lot of weaknesses in his game.

Favourite line of the draft: Not one of my own? Obviously the MXD top line fits here and in the next category. Kraut Line is another.

Best assembled line of the draft: Eagle's line of Tremblay-Backstrom-Provost. They'll be impossible to score against. pappy's top line of Hull-Boucher-Nedomansky could be very, very dangerous. Same with S. Howe-Gretzky-Bathgate.

Worst assembled line of the draft: Kharlamov-Morenz-Hedberg could be in a lot of trouble against a mobile two-way line or a smart, well-positioned defensive pairing.

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft: Well, VCL didn't try to pick a player twice, so that's out of the question. I'm sure arrbez must have done something zany at some point.

ck26

11-02-2007, 02:33 AM

I really hope this doesn't result in tit-for-tat voting / rating and devolve into a turf war.

Biggest Steal of the draft
- Lindsay at 30 was the 2nd best player at the weakest position slipping into the 2nd round. Amazing.
- Simpson at 621. Never heard of him before the draft, but he sounds like someone I would have taken 100 picks prior, which is something I can't say about anyone else.

Biggest Reach of the draft
- Jagr at 28. Probably only went about 10 picks early, but I can't justify him being a team's only skater chosen in the top 83 picks, especially with Lindsay and Trottier still on the board.
- Derian Hatcher as a 1st-pairing defenseman. This guy is vulnerable in any era except the clutch-and-grab 90's.
- Markus Naslund. Lighting in a bottle for a couple years. No chance he's better than Dumart, Dye, Tocchet or Hextall. Him as a 1st line winger gives me pause.

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft
This is hard ... Richard/Richard/Moore and Pronger/Niedermayer are up there.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft
- Same as "biggest reach" I guess

A Player finally getting respect in the draft
- Red Kelly
- Bruce Stuart
- Coach Ken Hitchcock

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft
- Paul Coffey went ahead of Scott Stevens in ATD 1-6, but that's been rectified for 7 & 8.
- One-dimensional guys like Dionne and Stastny have been corrected the last couple drafts

A player you've discovered in this draft
- Joe Simpson (half the guys from his era are probably half-urban legend at this point, but he looks remarkable)
- Bryan Trottier (always had him mentally labeled as a Bossy clone; never knew how good a two-way player he was until he fell to me and I did an hour of research)
- Busher Jackson (folks, he's not here to carry sticks)

Most underrated / overrated player taken
Same as steal / reach I guess.

Favourite line of the draft
- Richard / Richard / Moore 1st line ... three great Habs from the same era, wow.
- Gretzky / Bathgate / Howe 1st line ... Bathgate and Howe are perfect on this line
- Heatley / Modano / Kurri 2nd line (shameless plug) ... Modano and Kurri together has always been a little dream of mine

Best assembled line of the draft
Worst assembled line of the draft
- I'll re-attack this later when I'm not so tired

Sturminator

11-02-2007, 04:44 AM

Allright, my takes (I'll just omit opinions on my own team):

Biggest Steal of the draft

I praised the pick at the time, and I'll do it again: Alexander Yakushev. How he gets into the 9th round is really beyond me. The guy is big, a plus skater, a great goal-scorer in the slot, played at his best in pressure situations and had a nice, long career. He was the consistently the best Soviet player against team Canada for pretty much his entire international career, and that is saying something considering the talent mother Russia could ice during that period.

Yakushev doesn't get enough credit if you look at his Russian League hardware because he didn't play for the Red Army team. I think Yakushev went two rounds too late, and at that point in the draft, two rounds is huge. The only reason I didn't pick Bobrov here is because the Big Yak went even later. It was close for us between Kariya and the two Russians, and that was in the 7th round. I have voiced some reservations about how the play of some of the smaller, less physical commies will translate into our rough-and-tumble league, but with Yakushev, I don't have those questions.

Biggest Reach of the draft

I mentioned this one before, as well, and I hate to pick on one of "my guys", but Ken Morrow is a third pairing defenseman and the 10th round is not where you draft those guys. In no way, shape, or form should Morrow be selected with Jean-Guy Talbot (honorable mention for biggest steal) still on the board.

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft

This one is tough, because you really have to take the whole team into perspective, but Jiri Bubla in the 13th (reunited with Pospisil in St. Louis) was a very shrewd move. To begin with, I think Bubla is pretty underrated in this forum (again with the Europeans...), but putting that pairing back together adds more value. I think Pospisil-Bubla is one of the best second pairings in the league.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft

Rob Blake. Ugh...he's a rich man's Ed Jovanovski - a defenseman who can do it all when he's on, but a guy who can kill you with idiotic mistakes when he's off. He'd be a good second pairing anchor (I mean, the guy does have a lot of skill), but in the 4th round?! There are guys as low as the 8th round (including on guy I drafted) who I'd prefer to Rob Blake.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft

It's been said before, but I'll repeat it: Marty Barry. Nalyd and I were going to take him with the very next pick. He's one of those healthy, consistent types that I really like and his peak as a playoff performer was very impressive.

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft

Alexander Mogilny. Great offensive talent at his peak, but boy are there question marks. The 12th round seems a lot more appropriate for Almo than where he went in ATD#7.

A player you've discovered in this draft

Lots, but Herbie Lewis stands out. Very nice little player.

Most underrated player taken

Probably Lars-Eric Sjoberg. I think Sjoberg is a nice 2nd pairing offensive defenseman who not a lot of NHL fans know about because he was mostly a WHA guy in North America and played on a lesser team Sweden (not as good as the Russians and Czechs is what I mean) during the golden age of European international hockey. The 15th round is too late for Sjoberg.

Most overrated player taken

Tough one here, because I'm not sure what everyone actually thinks of all the players. Going by how hard the drafting GM sold him, I'd say Vlad Krutov is the most overrated player of the draft, but I have my doubts that anyone outside of Flin Flon is actually drinking the Kool Aid on that one. Chemistry is nice, but no way would I take Krutov ahead of Martin, Tonelli, Smith, Bobrov or Yakushev at a minimum, and that is only talking about other left wings.

As far as players who I believe are overrated by a majority of GMs, I'd say any of the goalies not named Benedict who were taken between Hall and Brimsek. I think the goalies who were taken shortly after Hainesworth were also picked too early.

Favourite line of the draft

Tonelli - Tkaczuk - Aurie

My favorite 3rd line in the league, and there are some good ones. Third lines are important, and the good doctor made a real committment to building his into a dynamite unit.

Best assembled line of the draft

Hull - Boucher - Nedomansky

It's a lethal unit with the right mix of talents, and both Boucher and big Ned were nice values where they were taken.

Worst assembled line of the draft

I have to agree that Denneny - Stewart - Dionne is the wrong mix of talent on Regina's first line. Probably, Regina would be better off switching Dionne and Dye and fielding a unit of Denneny - Stewart - Dye, none of whom can skate. If they're all slow skaters, at least Dionne's speed won't be wasted and they do have a lot of talent for playing a half-court cycling offensive game.

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft

I learned that when the Leafs did "King Clancy Day" towards the end of old Francis' career, that they made him an Irish green Leafs jersey with a shamrock in the front in place of the maple leaf and that he played in the jersey for the first period before the players on the other team complained about it and the King switched back to a normal sweater.

Rick Middleton

11-02-2007, 07:27 AM

Biggest Reach of the draft
- Steve Smith on the top defense pair. I realize he'll be used as a complement to Leetch, but I'm not sure that he can handle so many minutes against opponents' best players. Smith is good defensively, but not good enough to consistently hold down the fort for Leetch (who is underrated defensively but still takes a lot of risks).

Brian Leetch played his best hockey with Jeff Beukeboom as his defensive partner, hence I tried to match his strengths and weaknesses with another players strengths and weaknesses. In the end I came up with Steve Smith as being a good fit for Leetch and someone who brought significantly more to the table than Beukeboom. He's not exactly a tool offensively either. He hit 50+ points 3 times, including once with the Blackhawks (ergo he wasn't just a product of the Oilers system).

I don't see him as being a bad fit for my 1st line. I'm not loading up one line, I spread out my talent over all three lines. That way I can continue to apply offensive pressure regardless of which pairing is on the ice.

Rick Middleton

11-02-2007, 07:37 AM

Worst assembled line of the draft: Kharlamov-Morenz-Hedberg could be in a lot of trouble against a mobile two-way line or a smart, well-positioned defensive pairing.

Morenz isn't exactly a liability defensively

http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2006/05/howie-morenz.html

Toe Blake, who played with and against Morenz and played with and coached Richard, agrees the comparisons are accurate.

"They (Morenz and Richard) had that flair that would just lift the people right out of their seats. That's the best way I can explain it. You can take any era of hockey and the stars of yesterday would be stars of today. And Morenz is right up there at the top of the class. I don't think from end to end I ever saw a guy like Morenz. He was small, stocky, with the most powerful legs you've ever seen. He'd make rush after rush - at least 20 a game - and it never mattered how hard he got hit. Most players, after they were hit, you'd think 'Oh, he can't take that again,' but it didn't matter with him. Shot up into the seats in one rush, by killers like Eddie Shore and Taffy Abel and the like, and he'd come right back as if they didn't exist. And I'll tell you another thing, one of the greatest backcheckers I ever saw. He was just a terrific hockey player."

Nels Stewart, an legend of hockey himself, thought a little higher of Morenz when he said "They don't come like Morenz very often, about one in a century. He had everything, could rush, score goals, backcheck. You couldn't put the Rocket in the same breath as Howie, and that goes for everybody else, including Bill Cook. None of them were in the same stable

And regardless of the pairing, they're going to have to catch them first. These are three of the fastest players to have ever laced them up. Their one weakness is their lack of size, but regardless, you have to be able to hit them to make their size an issue, and good luck to the defensive pairing that can do that.

BM67

11-02-2007, 08:12 AM

Biggest Reach of the draft

I mentioned this one before, as well, and I hate to pick on one of "my guys", but Ken Morrow is a third pairing defenseman and the 10th round is not where you draft those guys. In no way, shape, or form should Morrow be selected with Jean-Guy Talbot (honorable mention for biggest steal) still on the board.

I agree that Morrow shouldn't go that high, I had planned to take Pitre, but I doubt that if I passed on him he would have lasted more than a round or so. So if you want him, you have to take him near there.

He's a righty shot. This moves him up the pecking order due to demand, plus I already had 3 lefty D. He's 6'4" and mobile/positionally smart enough to excel on international size ice and not rack up big penalty minutes. He is a defensive defenseman without much offense, but he stepped up his production in the playoffs. He scored 12 points in one playoff, and scored 3 OT winners. His goals, assists, points, and GWG's all came at an increased rate in the playoffs. He scored more points in one playoff than Moose Vasko (pick 255) did in his career, and had more career playoff points than Brad McCrimmon (pick 261).

MXD

11-02-2007, 08:20 AM

I agree that Morrow shouldn't go that high, I had planned to take Pitre, but I doubt that if I passed on him he would have lasted more than a round or so. So if you want him, you have to take him near there.

He's a righty shot. This moves him up the pecking order due to demand, plus I already had 3 lefty D. He's 6'4" and mobile/positionally smart enough to excel on international size ice and not rack up big penalty minutes. He is a defensive defenseman without much offense, but he stepped up his production in the playoffs. He scored 12 points in one playoff, and scored 3 OT winners. His goals, assists, points, and GWG's all came at an increased rate in the playoffs. He scored more points in one playoff than Moose Vasko (pick 255) did in his career, and had more career playoff points than Brad McCrimmon (pick 261).

(...) playing in an high-scoring era, where it was common for d-mens to attack as opposed to Vasko's era.

The statement is now more complete.

EDIT : Nothing against Ken Morrow, though. And I agree that if you want a player that is likely to be gone at your next pick, you should him, no matter how early the pick looks after on. I don't know when you're next pick was, but if it was, let's say, 40 picks after the spot where you picked Morrow, he would likely have been gone.

Rick Middleton

11-02-2007, 08:26 AM

I'll preface the following with a note that I'm a rookie in this type of draft. Hence I won't try and state definitively that player X is so much better than player Y but will state whom I like and dislike.

Biggest Steal of the draft

59 doctordark - Portage la Prairie Plains - Sprague Cleghorn
80 shawnmullin - Victoria Cougars - Fred "Cyclone" Taylor
87 BlueBleeder - St. Louis Eagles - Peter Stastny
101 Frightened Inmate #2 - Calgary RCAF Mustangs - Johnny Bucyk

Biggest Reach of the draft

44 murphy - Edmonton Oilers - Tim Horton

Sorry, but as much as I love Timmy's coffee I can't rationalize Horton being selected so high over the likes of Bernie Geoffrion, Sprague Cleghorn, Newsy Lalonde, King Clancy, etc. A very good defensive defenceman and decent offensively but not someone who I would choose with a 3rd round pick. Too many more important components out there at the time.

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft

144 John Flyers Fan & Roger's Pancreas - Flin Flon Bombers - Bill Cowley

I made a trade for Cowley and gave up Larionov, whom I had selected earlier with the 135th pick, along with a couple of bump ups in later rounds just to acquire him. At that stage Cowley was a veritable steal.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft

28 vancityluongo & Tricolore#20 - Winnipeg Jets - Jaromir Jagr

Jagr ahead of Valeri Kharlamov, Joe Sakic, Jari Kurri, etc. I'm not a Jagr fan. Great when he wants to be. Invisible when he's pouting. Too much of a headcase to burn a first rounder on.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft

I'll opt out of this one given it's my 1st draft.

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft

Ibid.

A player you've discovered in this draft

Half of my defense corps. Did a lot of reading on the Soviet players, learned to appreciate their talents, especially considering their exploits versus the best of the NHL in the 1970's. They played with the big boys and matched them game for game.

Most underrated player taken

87 BlueBleeder - St. Louis Eagles - Peter Stastny

I loved Stastny as a kid. He was 2nd to Gretzky in scoring in the 80's. Let me emphasize that again, 2nd to Gretzky. How fricking impressive is that? Plus he was defensively sound and had a mean streak. Add on top of that he had to defect from behind the Iron Curtain just to make it to the NHL. Bundle all those together and you have someone who is deservedly a 2nd round selection IMO.

Most overrated player taken

49 Evil Sather & kruezer - New York Rangers - Billy Smith

Yes, he has plenty of Stanley Cup rings on his fingers. Yes, he was a mean bugger. And yes, he was a money goalie. But in terms of pure talent Smith is taken before literally a half-dozen goalies I would rate higher. I may be alone on this one but I just don't value Smith as highly as others. He was as much a product of that dominant team as he was an individual talent.

Favourite line of the draft

Props to nik jr. and Agent Dale Cooper's line of Roy Conacher-Norm Ullman-Gordie "Mr. Hockey" Howe. Excellent two way first line.

Best assembled line of the draft

Hockey Outsiders line of Don Marcotte - Doug Jarvis - Pit Martin

Great shutdown line.

Worst assembled line of the draft

Don't mean to lump on but Hockey_Guy_18's defensive pairing of Petr Svoboda-Al Iafrate. Who the hell knows what those two could do together? It could be good, it could be ugly.

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft

None really.

God Bless Canada

11-02-2007, 09:39 AM

A few quick points:

*ck, I picked Red Kelly at No. 20 in the last draft, so I don't think he's "finally getting respect." I think he's worth a pick in the top 16-20, because he was so good at two positions. I think Ken Hitchcock has been a head coach in the main draft.
*Sturm, I think Mogilny still goes too high. But that might be because I have no use for the guy. And I believe this is the second-latest that Rob Blake has ever been picked. When I picked him in the last draft, that was the latest.
*RM, Horton is definitely worth a top 50 pick, especially when you consider the way in which defencemen went in this draft. He's one of the best defencemen ever, and he would have put up very big point totals if he would have started 20 years later, when defencemen were encouraged to jump into the rush. Excellent skater, good puck-mover, bullet shot. One of the strongest players ever, too. I got him 50-ish in ATD #6 and thought it was a great pick. I'll put Horton in the top 15 defencemen ever. The 1960s Leafs are considered by some to have the best defence ever. Horton was the No. 1 defenceman. That says a lot.
*I'm a big Howie Morenz fan, but I'm not sure how the Kharlamov-Morenz-Hedberg line will work. I'm a huge Morenz fan (I think he's worthy of a top 20 pick) but I think Kharlamov goes too soon in each draft. (I wouldn't pick Kharlamov ahead of Mahovlich, and, based on what each player brings to a team, I'd maybe look at Dickie Moore ahead of Kharlamov). Kharlamov's an all-time great, but I think he gets that extra cred because there is so much mystery associated with him. I'd like to see that crash-and-bang winger on that line instead of Hedberg.

Rick Middleton

11-02-2007, 10:18 AM

*RM, Horton is definitely worth a top 50 pick, especially when you consider the way in which defencemen went in this draft. He's one of the best defencemen ever, and he would have put up very big point totals if he would have started 20 years later, when defencemen were encouraged to jump into the rush. Excellent skater, good puck-mover, bullet shot. One of the strongest players ever, too. I got him 50-ish in ATD #6 and thought it was a great pick. I'll put Horton in the top 15 defencemen ever. The 1960s Leafs are considered by some to have the best defence ever. Horton was the No. 1 defenceman. That says a lot.

There are still a half-dozen defencemen I'd rather go with over Horton (to note Leetch, Cleghorn, Niedermayer, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe and Pronger). Horton's defensive prowess is elite, but when you're selecting a #1 defenceman I'd rather go with someone who can headman the puck and provide me with solid D. Horton is more of a rock-solid #2 or an elite #3 than a true #1 in my books.

*I'm a big Howie Morenz fan, but I'm not sure how the Kharlamov-Morenz-Hedberg line will work. I'm a huge Morenz fan (I think he's worthy of a top 20 pick) but I think Kharlamov goes too soon in each draft. (I wouldn't pick Kharlamov ahead of Mahovlich, and, based on what each player brings to a team, I'd maybe look at Dickie Moore ahead of Kharlamov). Kharlamov's an all-time great, but I think he gets that extra cred because there is so much mystery associated with him. I'd like to see that crash-and-bang winger on that line instead of Hedberg.

Gretzky-Kurri-Anderson or whomever were there to score, as is my top line. I'm not putting them out against another team's top line to shut them down. I'm putting them out against whomever to light it up.

ck26

11-02-2007, 10:51 AM

*ck, I picked Red Kelly at No. 20 in the last draft, so I don't think he's "finally getting respect." I think he's worth a pick in the top 16-20, because he was so good at two positions. I think Ken Hitchcock has been a head coach in the main draft.I meant finally as in the last couple drafts. He was going in the 30's for a while (36 and 39 once wow) and low-20's is more appropriate.

Hitch has been in a couple drafts, completely omitted in others ... I think he belongs roughly where he was taken, on the lower end of main draft coaches. Here's hoping we get rid of these stupid assistant coaches and he stays in the 550-650 range.

MXD

11-02-2007, 11:06 AM

Biggest Steal of the draft
Ted Lindsay. A guy picked 10 picks later than he should is a HUGE steal in the 1st round.

Bullet Joe Simpson. Not much to add on this one.
Shrimp Worters. Rollins, Dzurilla, Worters. I had it in that order as far as backup goes. They went in that order, but no way Worters should go 100+ picks later than the two guys I mentionned. He was maybe 5'3, but he was adept a stopping pucks, right?

Tommy Gorman. Much later than he should. But more on him later...
Biggest Reach of the draft

Nels Stewart. Won't make any friends with this one, but he just comes with negatives that shouldn't be overlooked.
HM : Kenny Reardon. Reck's pick was really much further down, and Reardon wouldn't have been available. Reardon's prime is indeed good, but he had an awfully short career - the war hurt him, however - , and roughly missed 15% to 20% of the scheduled games every year to injuries. Being on All Star Teams 5 years in a row is quite a feat, but he comes with too much "what ifs" to be taken this early. On the spot, I really did "WTF?!?!?". I think it's a little better now that I think of it. Not that it's actualy a huge reach, it's just one nodoby will point out (I think).

HM : Lennard Svedberg. Nothing against Svedberg, I just think he would have been available in the 14th round for your pick 367, BlueBleeder.

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft

Hull, then Oates, then Klukay. Which is the smartest is up to you.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft
There's no Handzus this time around... But there's a Maurice.

Bryan Murray. BlueBleeder... Drop him, and pick someone else at the end of the draft. I wouldn't consider Bryan Murray for the JLD (that is, the Junior League Draft), let alone MLD and ATD. There's certainly a good guy remaining (look in the MLD 6 or 7 if you don't know where to start). LL's pick of Paul Maurice last draft suddenly looks great.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft
Jack Darragh. He had nothing to do in the 500+ last draft.
Jack Crawford/Cyclone Wentworth. They went 100 picks later last draft. Excellent "dual" picks by BM67.

HM to Sylvio Mantha.
A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft
Cam Neely. As in... AFTER Boris Mikhailov. Guy Carbonneau, as in, AFTER Dave Keon. Both of them still goes a little too high for my tastes, but they're much closer to their true "rank", if such thing exists, or their rank relative to another player at his position.
A player you've discovered in this draft
Someone I haven't drafted, and that is not drafted (yet). I considered the guy on par with the one I picked for my 7th D-Men spot (Gary Bergman), but just not as complete as Bergman, and I wanted a guy who could take someone's spot in the roster with the "lesser loss, regardless of who's out of the lineup". I knew about him before, but not that much, and I hope he will get drafted.... Or not, I'd like him in my MLD team and will likely be my 1st pick. (this is if I participate in the MLD, of course)

The said player was Glen Harmon.
Most underrated player taken
Bernard Parent. Don't know if he's a steal or if he's underated, but should go before he did for sure.

Vic Hadfield. Could score goals out of nothingness. Should go much before.
Most overrated player taken
Usual suspects. Konstantinov and Foote. A bit of Chara... Great on the special teams, just not much everywhere else, and a pitful playoff record. I think he should go a little later, but not much, and he makes sense where he was picked, and on the team he was picked ; LL have a good and deep Top-4, so I won't consider Chara to be often on the ice at ES.
Even if his death circumstances were tragic, and that he was quite good for the short time he played, Pelle Lindberg shouldn't go in the "Major" ATD. There are two guys (who ain't drafted yet) who had extremely similar career patterns and stats that played more seasons than Lindberg.
And MARTIN BRODEUR. I often say that Sawchuck is overrated, but Brodeur is even worst. He shouldn't have ANY Vezina, and shouldn't even have been NOMINATED for the Vezina those years.
Favourite line of the draft
Hull - Boucher - Nedomansky. I already made my comments about them earlier on.
While I don't necessarily want to pimp my guys, I have to make the following comment : I see that my 1st line gets lots of respect, and that was the point of setting up that line. However, I really like what I was able to do with my third line, by setting up three guys that played together. While I might have "overpicked" Pocket Rocket (I think he shouldn't go ahead of Syl Apps Sr.), that was something of a "dream line" to ice. But I was able to do the same with my third line without reaching for anybody.
Considering what I said about my third line, I think Tremblay - Backstrom - Provost line might be even better at avoiding goals (but not quite as good for scoring them).
Best assembled line of the draft
Hull - Boucher - Nedomansky. They're my favorite because they're well assembled.
As far as "economic" pairing are concerned, Denis Potvin/Harry Howell is right there, with Serge Savard/Phil Housley to a lesser extent. Those teams will have all they want from a 1st pairing, at the lesser cost.
HM to Gillies - Petrov - Darragh. This line could be faster, but that's pretty much there is to say about them.

Worst assembled line of the draft
It's not a line, but...I won't make any friends with this, but I think that's an extreme case of mis-castitis...
Tommy Gorman. My point : He was Head Coach, but even more, he was GM, and slightly megalomaniac considering what I knew about him. I just don't see him being an Assistant Coach, and even less with Cecil Hart. On the other hand, Gorman is something of a steal as far as the "pick" is concerned. I just think he's COMPLETLY miscasted.

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft
A fan offering 5$ per bodycheck to Bucko McDonald during a game. The game goes in multiple-OT, and Bucko registered 38 hits during the game.
Something else while looking for a player I haven't drafted yet, and that I might not even draft. I'll update whenever he's picked, or by the end of the draft.

GM having weirds selctions order

With pick 153, Arbez selects Fern Flaman. With pick 184, Arbez selects Alex Ragulin.

- Fern Flaman is a reach as far as I am concerned at 153. And Ragulin is a little steal at 184. Thus, why somebody would pick Flaman ahead of Ragulin is really above me. Ragulin would have been a great pick at 153, and Flaman ... well, he probably wouldn't have been available at 184, as I think Murphy would have taken him. But seeing those two guys taken in such order is a bit mind-boggling. I understand why teams would go for NHLers instead of Euro players (the playoff factor), but it's not like Flaman was a monster playoff performer, and was pretty much neutral in this aspect -- 3 cups in 17 years isn't really that much in the O6 era, even though, to be fair, he was playing with the wrong team.

arrbez

11-02-2007, 11:23 AM

With pick 153, Arbez selects Fern Flaman. With pick 184, Arbez selects Alex Ragulin.

- Fern Flaman is a reach as far as I am concerned at 153. And Ragulin is a little steal at 184. Thus, why somebody would pick Flaman ahead of Ragulin is really above me. Ragulin would have been a great pick at 153, and Flaman ... well, he probably wouldn't have been available at 184, as I think Murphy would have taken him. But seeing those two guys taken in such order is a bit mind-boggling. I understand why teams would go for NHLers instead of Euro players (the playoff factor), but it's not like Flaman was a monster playoff performer, and was pretty much neutral in this aspect -- 3 cups in 17 years isn't really that much in the O6 era, even though, to be fair, he was playing with the wrong team.

I think you just answered your own question ;). I wanted both guys, and I figured Ragulin was more likely to drop, and I was right by the look of it. Flaman may not have been the best all-around defenseman at that point, but that's the sacrifice that often has to be made to get a player who's so incredibly dangerous physically. For instance, Scott Stevens was the 7th defenceman taken...which I find far more dubious than Flaman as the 44th (if my counting is right).

Being called the toughest guy to play against by Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau says an awful lot, and I thought Flaman would be an ideal second pairing guy to go with one of the more offensive-minded European defensemen I planned on taking in the next round.

nik jr

11-02-2007, 11:54 AM

Biggest Steal of the draft
f boucher, gorman, lalonde, bucko mcdonald, finnigan, clancy, cowley

Biggest Reach of the draft
taffy abel
i, too, wouldn't pick andreychuk ahead of kerr.
numminen
foote
i wouldn't take niedermayer ahead of cleghorn, clancy, gadsby and a few others.

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft
tarasov and chernyshev, hitchman

Biggest blunder selection of the draft
punch imlach is too dictatorial for most teams, and that team especially, imo.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft
gerard, finnigan, klukay

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft
hard to say as this is my 1st draft, but i think chara qualifies.

A player you've discovered in this draft
bruce stuart, lloyd cook, joe simpson

Most underrated player taken
shadrin, wentworth, klukay

Most overrated player taken
konstantinov was 1 of my favorite players, but i think he's almost always taken too high.
i have a low opinion of red horner. he was never an all star, and was a penalty machine.
i think gerry cheevers is overrated.
smyth, doan.

Favourite line of the draft
hull-boucher-nedomansky
blake-taylor-lafleur
tremblay-backstrom-provost
marcotte-jarvis-martin

Best assembled line of the draft
tremblay-backstrom-provost
moore-richard-richard
marcotte-jarvis-martin

Worst assembled line of the draft
pass

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft
babe siebert is the only coach to have never won or lost a game. he drowned after being named coach of the habs, but before actually coaching a game.

re rob blake:
he was the last guy on our list (of about 10 dmen), so we didn't really take him intentionally. we weren't expecting a run. rookie mistake i guess.

pitseleh

11-02-2007, 02:01 PM

Biggest Steal of the draft
Hextall Sr. at 215 is still too low for him. Sid Abel went too late too, IMO. Clancy would have been a good pick 10 spots earlier, which is pretty big that early in the draft. Babe Dye was also a good pick where he went. I'm not a fan of his, but to get his offensive talent that late in the draft is a steal.

Biggest Reach of the draft
Punch Broadbent is a great player, but I think where he went was too early. I wouldn't pick Gary Suter where he was picked either, especially ahead of some of the great defensemen taken in round #8.

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft
Getting Hainsworth was a great move by ES, IMO. He's in a division stacked with goalies, and making the move to ensure he picked a starter who is at least middle of the pack in the draft was a smart move. It'll stop him from getting overmatched in that area.

Biggest blunder selection of the draft
I don't know if blunder is the right word, but I was very surprised that nik jr and Agent Dale Cooper didn't opt to pick Lindsay when he was still around at their second pick. Re-uniting the Production Line would have been fantastic. I understand them not wanting to get stuck without a goalie, but I think it would have been worth it, personally.

A Player finally getting respect in the draft
Without a doubt it's Roy Conacher for me. This guy has been a steal where he's been picked in every draft, IMO. He finally went where deserved. Honorable mention to Marty Barry and Bucko McDonald (damn you guys for stealing them from me).

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft
Joe Thornton went much too high last draft.

A player you've discovered in this draft
Lloyd Cook came out of left field.

Most underrated player taken
Ott Heller (plus a lot of players who had the misfortune of playing on crappy teams - Gadsby is another that comes to mind).

Most overrated player taken
Dale Hunter. He's a good fourth line player and all, but I still don't get the immense love he gets personally.

Favourite line of the draft
Love the Conacher-Ullman-Howe line in terms of players. I'm a bit worried about the ability of the three phenominal goal scorers to work together (especially without a strong playmaker on defense), but in terms of players it is fantastic.

Best assembled line of the draft
Can't believe no one mentioned Mahovlich-Abel-Geoffrion. That's an outstanding line combo, IMO. Firsov-Fedorov-Mikhailov will be something to watch too. Hull-Boucher-Nedomansky will be a sight to see as well.

Worst assembled line of the draft
Ovechkin-Lemaire-Mogilny seems like an odd collection of players to me.

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft
If I think about one, I'll add it.

nik jr

11-02-2007, 02:40 PM

Favourite line of the draft
Love the Conacher-Ullman-Howe line in terms of players. I'm a bit worried about the ability of the three phenominal goal scorers to work together (especially without a strong playmaker on defense), but in terms of players it is fantastic.

i see your point, but we think this line will be very effective.

before i saw howe on film, i never knew that his vision and playmaking were so good. he was a great playmaker. he did the NHL in assists 3 times.
apparently, ullman's big year when he led the NHL in goals came after howe told him to stop trying to make the perfect pass and shoot more.
conacher did finish 2nd in assists (only 1 behind the leader) when he won the art ross, so we think it'll be OK.

i don't really know which way to go on dman to run the offense with the 1st line. hod stuart was great at it, but some will think he's not up to it. siebert finished in the top 10 in assists as a dman when he won the hart, so he might be the best bet.

i really wanted to take lindsay, but my co-GM was set against it, especially since we traded up to get a goalie.

pitseleh

11-02-2007, 02:43 PM

i see your point, but we think this line will be very effective.

before i saw howe on film, i never knew that his vision and playmaking were so good. he was a great playmaker. he did the NHL in assists 3 times.
apparently, ullman's big year when he led the NHL in goals came after howe told him to stop trying to make the perfect pass and shoot more.
conacher did finish 2nd in assists (only 1 behind the leader) when he won the art ross, so we think it'll be OK.

i don't really know which way to go on dman to run the offense with the 1st line. hod stuart was great at it, but some will think he's not up to it. siebert finished in the top 10 in assists as a dman when he won the hart, so he might be the best bet.

i really wanted to take lindsay, but my co-GM was set against it, especially since we traded up to get a goalie.

I agree, all of them are good playmakers, my concern is that it may draw them away from their strength (goal scoring) a bit to compensate. Even with that though, it's still one of the top offensive lines in the draft.

BM67

11-02-2007, 05:15 PM

(...) playing in an high-scoring era, where it was common for d-mens to attack as opposed to Vasko's era.

The statement is now more complete.

EDIT : Nothing against Ken Morrow, though. And I agree that if you want a player that is likely to be gone at your next pick, you should him, no matter how early the pick looks after on. I don't know when you're next pick was, but if it was, let's say, 40 picks after the spot where you picked Morrow, he would likely have been gone.

Fine. Using pnep's adjusted playoff stats, Morrows 12 points becomes 10.22 and Vasko's 9 points becomes 15.72, but we're still comparing ONE YEAR to an ENTIRE CAREER.

I'm not trying to knock Vasko, scoring is neither player's strong point, but he's the polar opposite of Morrow when it comes to playoff points. Morrow goes from 0.03 gpg, 0.16 apg and 0.19 ptspg in the regular season to 0.09 gpg, 0.17 apg, and 0.26 ptspg in the playoffs. Vasko goes from 0.04 gpg, 0.21 apg and 0.25 ptspg to 0.03 gpg, 0.09 apg, and 0.12 ptspg. Vasko's scoring drops by 55% while Morrow's climbs by 36%.

reckoning

11-02-2007, 05:28 PM

Fine. Using pnep's adjusted playoff stats, Morrows 12 points becomes 10.22 and Vasko's 9 points becomes 15.72, but we're still comparing ONE YEAR to an ENTIRE CAREER.

I'm not trying to knock Vasko, scoring is neither player's strong point, but he's the polar opposite of Morrow when it comes to playoff points. Morrow goes from 0.03 gpg, 0.16 apg and 0.19 ptspg in the regular season to 0.09 gpg, 0.17 apg, and 0.26 ptspg in the playoffs. Vasko goes from 0.04 gpg, 0.21 apg and 0.25 ptspg to 0.03 gpg, 0.09 apg, and 0.12 ptspg. Vasko's scoring drops by 55% while Morrow's climbs by 36%.

And Morrow scored important goals at playoff time. He had 3 OT winners, the most famous being the one that won the deciding game against the Rangers in `84. Are there any other defencemen with three playoff OT winners?

seventieslord

11-02-2007, 07:05 PM

And Morrow scored important goals at playoff time. He had 3 OT winners, the most famous being the one that won the deciding game against the Rangers in `84. Are there any other defencemen with three playoff OT winners?

Nicklas Wallin? I think he has three career playoff goals, all in OT.

pappyline

11-02-2007, 07:22 PM

Biggest Steal of the draft
Lindsay was a definite early steal. D Bentley should have went a round earlier, Ulf Nilsson was an incredible late round steal.

Biggest Reach of the draft
Boivan @ 156. There were many better Dmen still out there.

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft
Can’t really say for sure. I think trading up to get a specific player is risky. Never do it (except for Hull, of course)

Biggest blunder selection of the draft
Agree with several others regarding Jagr & Brodeur before Lindsay

A Player finally getting respect in the draft
Good to see Murray Oliver, Rene Robert, Camille Henry finally picked in the main draft. Also good to see Norm Ullman, Fern Flaman, Bill White, Bert Olmstead Walt Tkaczuk getting picked closer to where they belong.

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft
Players like Huddy, Foote, Ciccarelli, Elias. Dale Hunter were, IMO, always picked too high in past drafts. Maybe still too high.

A player you've discovered in this draft
Actually there were many. Several old-timers plus some Europeans that I must do some more research on. Very impressed with the research some GM’s have done. Bullet Joe Simpson jumps out at me but there are several others.

Most underrated player taken
I agree with others on Bucyk. Busher Jackson is another I consider under-rated. He should be ranked much closer to linemate Conacher.

Most overrated player taken
Gainey. Ferguson,Shutt. I really think quite average players on Habs dynasties get way over-rated.

Favourite line of the draft
Favorites are the Krauts & the Jackson-Trottier- Hextall line.
Also like
Mahovolich-Abel-Geoffrion
Bentley-Bentley-Neeley
Moore-Richard-Richard
French Connection

Best assembled line of the draft
Bentley-Bentley-Neeley. Have a soft spot for the Bentleys & think Neeley was a good pick for the RW.
Also, really like the Big M-Abel-Geoffrion line.

Worst assembled line of the draft
Several fall into this category but will keep my comments for the match ups.

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft
There are a couple but they have already been mentioned.

vancityluongo

11-02-2007, 07:35 PM

ck26

11-02-2007, 07:50 PM

I'll post mine later...and we've already had this discussion but:

I can see how getting Lindsay was a steal...I quite frankly agree. What I don't agree on is how taking Jagr can be a blunder. You might not like the guy for whatever reason, but he has offensive talent, and he knows how to play. Okay, maybe taking him at 28 is early...so where should he be picked? 40? 50? Meh.The two judgements are related. Jagr was a mistake because Lindsay was still there. Lindsay was a steal because he is clearly better (IMO) than another winger (Jagr) taken ahead of him. That high in the draft, slipping even a couple slots in either direction is enough to call a blunder / bust ... case in point ... if Bobby Orr slips as far as 4, we all mock those 3 GM's forever.

vancityluongo

11-02-2007, 08:17 PM

The two judgements are related. Jagr was a mistake because Lindsay was still there. Lindsay was a steal because he is clearly better (IMO) than another winger (Jagr) taken ahead of him. That high in the draft, slipping even a couple slots in either direction is enough to call a blunder / bust ... case in point ... if Bobby Orr slips as far as 4, we all mock those 3 GM's forever.

This I disagree with. If we took Lindsay, he'd still be a steal at that point IMO. Lack of judgement from our side, so yeah, I guess that does fit biggest blunder perfectly...I dunno, for some reason, I just found that overly harsh. But the more I read about Lindsay, the more clearly I see that we should have taken him.

ck26

11-02-2007, 08:30 PM

If we took Lindsay, he'd still be a steal at that point IMO.Agreed. I'm of the opinion that 1st round picks -- aside from the Gretzkys and Beliveaus, who are a couple notches ahead of Jagr offensively -- should play in every situation. The ability of Clarke, Yzerman, Lindsay and Trottier (2 skaters ahead and behind Jagr) to dominate is basically the same as Jagr ... I like those 4 because they can play powerplay, even strength and penalty kill. You can play them first line or second line. You don't need to go into the next pick saying, "I need a checker / playmaker to be his linemate," you can just get the best player.

If you take Trottier or Lindsay or Yzerman, you can get any type of linemate to play with him, allowing you to pick "best player" with your next one. If you take Jagr, you must find him a worker and a playmaker, forcing you to draft, "best playmaker," which may limit your options slightly.

nik jr

11-02-2007, 08:50 PM

Agreed. I'm of the opinion that 1st round picks -- aside from the Gretzkys and Beliveaus, who are a couple notches ahead of Jagr offensively -- should play in every situation. The ability of Clarke, Yzerman, Lindsay and Trottier (2 skaters ahead and behind Jagr) to dominate is basically the same as Jagr ... I like those 4 because they can play powerplay, even strength and penalty kill. You can play them first line or second line. You don't need to go into the next pick saying, "I need a checker / playmaker to be his linemate," you can just get the best player.

If you take Trottier or Lindsay or Yzerman, you can get any type of linemate to play with him, allowing you to pick "best player" with your next one. If you take Jagr, you must find him a worker and a playmaker, forcing you to draft, "best playmaker," which may limit your options slightly.

jagr doesn't need a playmaker. he's a great playmaker himself. i would put him on a line with a 2-way center who can score and a gritty LW.

arrbez

11-02-2007, 09:09 PM

pappyline

11-02-2007, 09:24 PM

I think people are being overly harsh on the Jagr pick. I know a lot of people don't like the guy, and it's true, he did dog it for a couple years in Washington. On the other hand, he's a guy who's always come to play in the playoffs, and has come up big with some brutal injuries. I don't think the guy deserves half the criticism he gets.

After Gretzky, Lemieux (and Orr I suppose), Jagr is right in with the next group (Lafleur, Esposito, etc) in terms of offensive ability. Although he did win one scoring title, Lindsay is not on that level in terms of offence.

Lindsay is great for a number of reasons. He has many dimensions that Jagr doesn't, but Jagr has a dimension (arguably the most important one for a first line player) that Lindsay doesn't. Jagr's one of the few players I've ever seen who can dominate all by himself. He can completely carry an offence playing with absolute garbage players, and there's very few guys who can do that IMO (and Lindsay isn't one of them). So this would allow a GM to be a little more economical with Jagr's linemates, whereas I think you'd want another top-end offensive player to go with Lindsay.

So, to conclude, I believe that Jagr can be every bit as valuable as Ted Lindsay. It all really comes down to how the lines are built around them.
You make a very good point. To be good offensively, lindsay needed good linemates. His best years were from howe's rookie season in 46-47 to 56-57 when he was traded to Chicago. He came off his best point season of 85 in 56-57 but dropped to 39 in 57-58 in Chicago. In 58-59, he was put on a great line with litzenberger & Sloan and jumped to a respectable 58 points (also 184 pim). The next year, Litz was seiously injured & lindsay dropped t0 26 points & retired. He brought other intangibles to the game but needed to play with good players to put up offensive numbers. Jagr doesn't have those intangibles but is certainly a better offensive player.

vancityluongo

11-02-2007, 11:18 PM

jagr doesn't need a playmaker. he's a great playmaker himself. i would put him on a line with a 2-way center who can score and a gritty LW.

LaFontaine fits the 2-way center...don't know if you call Joliat a gritty winger...

You make a very good point. To be good offensively, lindsay needed good linemates. His best years were from howe's rookie season in 46-47 to 56-57 when he was traded to Chicago. He came off his best point season of 85 in 56-57 but dropped to 39 in 57-58 in Chicago. In 58-59, he was put on a great line with litzenberger & Sloan and jumped to a respectable 58 points (also 184 pim). The next year, Litz was seiously injured & lindsay dropped t0 26 points & retired. He brought other intangibles to the game but needed to play with good players to put up offensive numbers. Jagr doesn't have those intangibles but is certainly a better offensive player.

Exactly. Yes, I have no problem admitting that Lindsay was a better pick then Jagr...what's typically called a "steal". But your post is also why I'm kinda iffy when Jagr is labeled as a blunder.

Hockey Outsider

11-02-2007, 11:50 PM

LaFontaine fits the 2-way center...don't know if you call Joliat a gritty winger...

Joliat was the Theo Fleury of his era, but much more talented. What he lacked in size, he made up for in aggression and fearlessness.

Read Joe Pelletier's blog (http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2006/05/aurel-joliat.html) for stories about Joliat attacking Shore, fighting Punch Broadbent at age 70, and planning a comeback (who says old stars think they can't compete in today's NHL)?

pitseleh

11-02-2007, 11:59 PM

Joliat was the Theo Fleury of his era, but much more talented. What he lacked in size, he made up for in aggression and fearlessness.

Read Joe Pelletier's blog (http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2006/05/aurel-joliat.html) for stories about Joliat attacking Shore, fighting Punch Broadbent at age 70, and planning a comeback (who says old stars think they can't compete in today's NHL)?

I always loved the Maurice Richard interview (I don't remember the exact words, but it was something along the lines of this):

Reporter: How many goals do you think you'd score in today's NHL?
Richard: Probably around 20.
Reporter: That's it?
Richard: Well, you have to remember I'm over seventy years old now.

vancityluongo

11-03-2007, 12:17 AM

Sturminator

11-03-2007, 04:34 AM

nik, you do realize that Hap Day was also never an all-star, right? Hap played about half of his prime after the advent of the postseason all-star selections, but never got the nod. Should we dock him for it, as well, or should we take into account the fact that both Day and Horner were not only playing in a strong era for defensemen, but in the shadow of an icon?

Doug Mohns was also never picked for a postseason all-star team, (nor was Seattle's own Ed Westfall if we're talking about forwards, as well). Adam Foote has never been picked and almost certainly won't be before he retires. Of course, there is an important difference between Red Horner and the aforementioned players. Horner was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1965, shortly after the hall moved and set up in Toronto; the others are still on the outside looking in.

Defensemen taken in the first eight rounds of the draft with only one all-star nod include Zubov, Suter, Goldham, Housley and Carlyle. Should we start questioning the abilities of these players because of a relative lack of presence on all-star lists? Is Dan Boyle (no one's going to draft him, so I will use his name) as good as the above because he's got the same number of all-star nods? I don't think so. The postseason all-star teams are restrictive to begin with (only 4 defensemen per season) and the picks, themselves, are often head-scratchers. Take it with a grain of salt.

I find it curious that no one criticizes players picked relatively early who are not Hall of Famers, but now we're hearing that Red Horner should be knocked because he was never a postseason all-star. Just sticking with defensemen, did anyone balk when Mark Howe, J.C. Tremblay, Carl Brewer and Bill White were selected before Red Horner? I mean, Horner's in the Hall and those guys are not.

We've been conditioned to largely ignore the fact that certain players we know were great haven't been picked by the Hall for whatever reason. All four of the non-Hall of Famers I mentioned were all great defensemen and worthy of their selection. Perhaps it's time we start realizing that postseason all-star picks are often just as capricious and unfair as Hall selections?

Nik, your prejudice against Horner probably reflects the opinions of many of his contemporaries, as well. "Just a goon" is essentially the label you put on him after the pick was made, before I showed that Red was actually a very good offensive player, and as good a passer as Earl Seibert. Someone made the comment that the Leafs offense featured the Kid Line and that Horner's numbers were perhaps distorted due to that fact, but failed to mention the fact that Seibert spent a lot of time feeding pucks to the Bread Line and had Cecil Dillon on a second line (Dillon is a good player on an all-time second line, so for him to play on a real-world 2nd line is kind of ridiculous) for a lot of that time.

Comparing Horner and Seibert's offensive numbers was completely fair, and it showed clearly that Red had a high level of offensive ability, but quite possibly Horner's contemporaries also couldn't see past the fighting (which was the great source of his penalty minutes) and didn't give him a lot of credit when it came time to pick the postseason all-stars. As far as his PIMs go, given that we know he was the league's most frequent (and arguably greatest) fighter during his career and that we have no evidence Horner was a grabber who took a lot of cheap minor penalties, the conclusion is obviously that the PIMs came in 5 minute increments. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to assume that Red Horner will take any more minor penalties in an ATD setting than any other physical defenseman of his ilk. As far as the fighting goes, Nalyd and I will address pugilism once the actual matchups start, but suffice it to say, Horner won't have to play amateur boxer the way he did for many of his years in Toronto.

In the interest of increasing everyone's knowledge, I've got some more information on Horner's skating. The HHOF says of Horner: "He was not a graceful skater but could move the puck up ice quickly, usually feeding a tape-to-tape pass while having two forecheckers bearing down on him." Now, it appears from this description that Horner was a good passer in transition, but not much of a skater, but that is not true.

This is from Horner's HHOF spotlight:

"We only had four defensemen in those days," Horner continues, moving from discussing the Leafs' forwards to the blueline. "King Clancy and I played together for seven years. Hap Day played on the other pairing with XXX. I was just naturally a heavy hitter. I always was. I wasn't a graceful skater but when I joined the Leafs, Frank Selke told me, 'Red, if you can learn to break fast from the blueline, you'll make this team.' You'd hit somebody and the puck would be at your feet. You had to break fast. I worked at it. Hard. After practice - breaking from the blueline, breaking from the blueline."

Pelletier's site also has a similar comment on Horner's (http://mapleleafslegends.blogspot.com/2006/06/red-horner.html) skating:

His playmaking was very good and although he wasn't a graceful skater he could break as fast as anyone except the true speedballs like King Clancy and Howie Morenz.

Pelletier's site also mentions that Horner wasn't throwing down with designated goons in his fights. Remember that this was an era when true "goons" didn't really exist. Rosters were much smaller (the Leafs had only four defensemen, for example) and fights mostly took place between guys who got top icetime. Here is Pelletier's comment:

Red was a solid 6' and 190 Ibs (some sources suggest he was as big as 6'1" and 200 Ibs), which was an intimidating height and weight back then. He had many hard-fought battles with his opponents throughout the league. His most notable rivalries and battles were with Nels Stewart, Hooley Smith and Bill Cook.

Having a first-pairing defenseman go into the penalty box for fighting John Ferguson is not a way to win games, but if he's going off the ice for one of these guys? Horner is not going to be throwing down with the Bob Probert's of the league. That is a waste of his talents. He'll certainly provide an intimidation factor and deterrance to anyone who wants to take liberties with his teammates while he's on the ice, but it's not as if he can be removed from play by simply sending out a goon - not anymore so than any of the fighters from that era (Seibert, Smith, Stewart, et al).

Finally, I've got a little snippet (courtesy of backcheck) from the Toronto Star (http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/hockey/024002-119.01-e.php?&hockey_id_nbr=95&brws_s=1&&PHPSESSID=takmv7ghpd3qu3gl5koihnha05)in 1936 about a Cup finals game that the Leafs lost. It says simply:

Horner and Primeau did some grand rushing in this period.

It's not much, but players who can't skate aren't usually described as "rushing" the puck. Horner, however, was a fast skater, however clumsy it may have looked.

Wisent

11-03-2007, 05:06 AM

I think people are being overly harsh on the Jagr pick. I know a lot of people don't like the guy, and it's true, he did dog it for a couple years in Washington. On the other hand, he's a guy who's always come to play in the playoffs, and has come up big with some brutal injuries. I don't think the guy deserves half the criticism he gets.

After Gretzky, Lemieux (and Orr I suppose), Jagr is right in with the next group (Lafleur, Esposito, etc) in terms of offensive ability. Although he did win one scoring title, Lindsay is not on that level in terms of offence.

Lindsay is great for a number of reasons. He has many dimensions that Jagr doesn't, but Jagr has a dimension (arguably the most important one for a first line player) that Lindsay doesn't. Jagr's one of the few players I've ever seen who can dominate all by himself. He can completely carry an offence playing with absolute garbage players, and there's very few guys who can do that IMO (and Lindsay isn't one of them). So this would allow a GM to be a little more economical with Jagr's linemates, whereas I think you'd want another top-end offensive player to go with Lindsay.

So, to conclude, I believe that Jagr can be every bit as valuable as Ted Lindsay. It all really comes down to how the lines are built around them.

I completely agree with you. The only thing I have to add is the years he was bad he was still bad at a very high level just not to his capabilities.
In addition I want to say that even though the so called "intangibles" are what you like to have on a team, they are not as important as you think in "non-character" players. Jagr is surely not a cancer in a team. it is well deserved that he is a first rounder.

nik jr

11-03-2007, 11:27 AM

sturminator:

huge red horner fan, eh?

it isn't just that horner wasn't an AS, it's that he got so few votes. based on the (incomplete) AS voting from the '30s that HO posted in the award and AS voting thread, horner seems to have been generally rated from 5th-10th.

hap day was 2nd in left D voting in '33 (it seems there's some problem in either the voting or the reporting of the voting). day got just as many AS votes as horner in '37, even though day was near the end of his career. so it seems the voters considered day a better player. he was also picked quite a bit later than horner.

i think horner's PIMs are a disadvantage. i generally don't think it's a good idea to have key players take themselves out of the game for essentially no reason. horner was the most penalized man of his time by a huge margin. his career PIMs (accumulated in less than 500 games) weren't surpassed until ted lindsay (who played over twice as many games).

we will have a similar problem in keeping howe out of the box, but howe was only over 100 PIM 4 times, and maxed out at 109.

of course players like westfall weren't AS. as far as i know, a purely defensive forward has never been an AS (while playing as a defensive forward).
btw, we aren't detroit, EB is detroit.

Sturminator

11-03-2007, 12:41 PM

sturminator:

huge red horner fan, eh?

Actually, I'm not a fan. I'm an Andy Bathgate fan; Horner is one of Nalyd's guys. My fingerprints are all over the offense (with the notable exceptions being Gretzky, who was a no-brainer, Dillon and Holik), while the defense (with the exception of Si Griffis) is basically Nalyd's baby.

I'd have preferred Harry Howell or Ching Johnson (and we'd have taken one of them if they'd fallen to us), but it wasn't meant to be. Nevertheless, Horner is a player for whom the "usual sources" (the HHOF) give an extremely incomplete picture. I'm not interested in selling Red as a world-beater, calling him a steal or saying that he was better than a bunch of defensemen picked ahead of him because I don't think that is true, but any GM interested in winning would be a fool to allow the perception that one of his top defensemen is little more than a goon to persist any longer than it takes to reply to such an off-target remark.

The simple fact of the matter is that Red Horner is a very solid 2-way defenseman who was also his team's designated enforcer in an era when that really meant something. He was big for his era and very strong, he was a feared hitter, good in his own zone, in the corners, in front of the net, and he was a strong skater and playmaker. I'm not certain that Horner was the best defenseman on the board when we took him - an argument can be made for a few of the other defensemen taken within a round or so (hell, Oakland's own Harry Cameron in the 8th round was probably a better player) - but I am certain that Horner has the best all-around game of any defenseman available and that he was the best fit for our team when we took him.

Horner better than Hap Day? I think they're close, actually. Which one is better probably depends on what you're looking for. Day was a great leader (a fact which was surely not ignored by the all-star voters) and was probably a marginally better offensive player, as well, but he had nothing even resembling Horner's size, strength, toughness or physical play. It's hardly an insult to say that Horner is on roughly the same level as Hap Day. Day was one of the best picks of the 8th round and a guy Nalyd and I strongly considered taking (thereby reuniting the trio), though ultimately we decided that Harry Cameron was simply the better player.

Your reference to the all-star voting is appreciated, as it proves my point. Horner was never picked as one of the four best defensemen in a single season, but he was consistently chosen as a top-10 defenseman for basically his entire career. Is the difference between being 4th and 5th best really all that great? Horner doesn't need to be spectacular - that's what we drafted Clancy, Vasiliev and Cameron for - just very good, consistent and tough.

Now I have a question for you: which defenseman taken after Red Horner was clearly better? Let's not re-open the great Babe Siebert debate, please.

pitseleh

11-03-2007, 12:51 PM

Your reference to the all-star voting is appreciated, as it proves my point. Horner was never picked as one of the four best defensemen in a single season, but he was consistently chosen as a top-10 defenseman for basically his entire career. Is the difference between being 4th and 5th best really all that great? Horner doesn't need to be spectacular - that's what we drafted Clancy, Vasiliev and Cameron for - just very good, consistent and tough.

As an aside, that's something that's always bothered me with using the All-Star teams as a metric for evaluating players. Based upon it's structure, having twice as many defensemen as any other position selected tends to bias results towards defensemen. There are plenty of players who were consistently the third or fourth best player at their position when it was stacked (centers in the 80's, wingers in the 50's/early 60's and goalies several times through history), but defense is the only one that really compensates for that. But when the talent levels are thin, you tend to have guys make the team who likely wouldn't have had the talent been that thin at any other position.

That's why I really enjoyed Hockey Outsider's work on third team All-Stars.

MXD

11-03-2007, 01:59 PM

As an aside, that's something that's always bothered me with using the All-Star teams as a metric for evaluating players. Based upon it's structure, having twice as many defensemen as any other position selected tends to bias results towards defensemen. There are plenty of players who were consistently the third or fourth best player at their position when it was stacked (centers in the 80's, wingers in the 50's/early 60's and goalies several times through history), but defense is the only one that really compensates for that. But when the talent levels are thin, you tend to have guys make the team who likely wouldn't have had the talent been that thin at any other position.

That's why I really enjoyed Hockey Outsider's work on third team All-Stars.

... And where's this work?

pitseleh

11-03-2007, 02:09 PM

... And where's this work?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=407941

nik jr

11-03-2007, 02:59 PM

Your reference to the all-star voting is appreciated, as it proves my point. Horner was never picked as one of the four best defensemen in a single season, but he was consistently chosen as a top-10 defenseman for basically his entire career. Is the difference between being 4th and 5th best really all that great? Horner doesn't need to be spectacular - that's what we drafted Clancy, Vasiliev and Cameron for - just very good, consistent and tough.

Now I have a question for you: which defenseman taken after Red Horner was clearly better? Let's not re-open the great Babe Siebert debate, please.

how do we know he was consistently 5-10? the difference between 4 and 5 could be great or it could be infinitesimal, i don't know here. and from the incomplete voting, it looks as though he was closer to 10 than 5, but i can't say because the totals were posted for only a few years.

i don't know if i can say others are clearly better, and better overall may not be better for a certain team. i believe clancy was an instigator who couldn't finish what he started, so a player like horner makes sense.
i probably have a lower opinion of horner than most, based in part on his gigantic PIMs.
art coulter was a contemporary of horner, and he seems to have been better. do you think horner was better than terry harper or baun or mantha?

Sturminator

11-03-2007, 03:15 PM

art coulter was a contemporary of horner, and he seems to have been better. do you think horner was better than terry harper or baun or mantha?

Art Coulter was a fantastic pick by pappy and could have gone a couple rounds earlier. I think I mentioned that already. That being said, Coulter was quite clearly not the offensive talent that Horner was and there's no sense in arguing that he was more physical, because he wasn't. For most of his career, Art Coulter showed very little offense, but seems to have peaked right at the end. At any rate, Coulter's offensive peak was no better than Horner's, and he showed considerably less consistency over the course of his career.

Mantha's offensive numbers also don't match Horner's (and Mantha was known as a great 2-way defenseman), and once again, it's quite clear he wasn't as physical. Before you say anything about Mantha's teammates, their names were Morenz and Joliat.

The only argument that Mantha and/or Coulter were better than Horner rests upon either an assumption that they were better in their own zone (for which there is no evidence), or a claim that Horner's PIMs are such a hindrance that they make up for a clear advantage in offense and physical play. I don't see it. I'm not going to bother with Harper or Baun.

Nalyd Psycho

11-03-2007, 03:36 PM

it isn't just that horner wasn't an AS, it's that he got so few votes. based on the (incomplete) AS voting from the '30s that HO posted in the award and AS voting thread, horner seems to have been generally rated from 5th-10th.

hap day was 2nd in left D voting in '33 (it seems there's some problem in either the voting or the reporting of the voting). day got just as many AS votes as horner in '37, even though day was near the end of his career. so it seems the voters considered day a better player. he was also picked quite a bit later than horner.

i think horner's PIMs are a disadvantage. i generally don't think it's a good idea to have key players take themselves out of the game for essentially no reason. horner was the most penalized man of his time by a huge margin. his career PIMs (accumulated in less than 500 games) weren't surpassed until ted lindsay (who played over twice as many games).

Like Sturminator said, the defense is my baby, so I think I should speak up. To me, constructing a defense is a unique tactical process because the goal is to create a 7 man unit with chemistry where many of the players are never going to actually be on the ice as the others at the same time, and that you've got very different combinations for ES, PP and PK. (Where as forwards can easily be done with the 1st and 2nd lines being the 1st and 2nd pp units and 2/3rd of the 3rd and 4th lines making the PK units, ensuring instant chemistry.) So the goal is to create a unit with as many options as possible and as many niches filled as possible. So with that in mind, what does Hap Day offer the Seals? He's a left shooting mid level offensive d-man with a left shot, strong positional play with average to below average size. We already had two left shots and while Clancy can play off wing, the next offensive d-man though should be a right shot due to the value on the PP of having both shots. And what's more Vasiliev is perfectly capable of playing the 2nd PP unit. And then for his positional play, he's good, but he's no Vasliev. He offered nothing that was lacking and improved on nothing. Horner on the other hand offers only things the Seals would have lacked otherwise. He's a right shooting psychical defensive d-man who can play as an enforcer, has a strong transition offense and has very good size. Up until that point, size on the blue line was a real issue, with Vasiliev having average size and Clancy poor size. Also, while both played tough, due to their size, neither could be used as our crease clearing, corner battle winning, wear out the injury prone forwards, anti-power forward defender. Which is something we really needed. What's more, from the moment we got Gretzky we knew we were building a team where mobility, puck movement and puck control would be of the utmost importance. There are a lot of defensemen who offer what Horner offers to some degree or another, but, most of them lack Horner's mobility and passing skills. And certainly no one else still available combined Horner's skating, passing and defensive skills. (Would have loved to get Seibert or Chelios, but it was not to be.)

So, in conclusion, Horner was a rare find for us, he fit our team's Modus Operandi while also filling in all that gaps that are usually lacking from a defense built on mobility and puck movement.

And what's more, we've built a defense with 5 d-men who can log 25 minutes without a problem. So even if Horner breaks free from his leash, we won't really be struggling to ice a good defense. Clancy is massively underrated defensively because of his size. Griffis is underrated due to era, he's essentially late 90's Neidermeyer with mid 00's Neidermeyer's maturity, maybe not quite as good a skater, but still a rare combination of size and mobility. As was argued in the main thread, Cameron is actually a solid defensive d-man, he shouldn't be used in a shut down role, but we don't need to cover for him. And while I wouldn't give Norstrom more than 20 minutes a night, he can cover many of Horner's defensive responsibilities without the penalties.

We've built a unit that simultaneously needs Horner and doesn't. In the big picture, what he offers the team is immeasurable because he fills the wholes our style has without breaking away from the style. But, if he's gone for 5 minutes, we've got such a variety off high end skill sets on the blue line that we can always watch each others back. He won't be the man every game, but in a best of seven series, you best believe he'll be very valuable. If it takes 5-20 minutes to make the opponent realize that messing with Gretzky is a big no-no, then it's 5-20 minutes well spent. Because that's what the Oakland Seals are all about, ensuring that the natural order of Gretzky is how the games play out.

pitseleh

11-03-2007, 03:46 PM

The only argument that Mantha and/or Coulter were better than Horner rests upon either an assumption that they were better in their own zone (for which there is no evidence), or a claim that Horner's PIMs are such a hindrance that they make up for a clear advantage in offense and physical play. I don't see it. I'm not going to bother with Harper or Baun.

Personally, I would say that given Horner's advantages on offense and physical play compared to those two, I would assume that they were selected as All-Stars over Horner because of their defensive play. Maybe Evil Speaker could provide some more insight?

Nalyd Psycho

11-03-2007, 03:56 PM

Personally, I would say that given Horner's advantages on offense and physical play compared to those two, I would assume that they were selected as All-Stars over Horner because of their defensive play. Maybe Evil Speaker could provide some more insight?

While you are probably correct (Which is why Vasiliev and not Horner is going to go against the top offensive players.) it is worth noting the role argument. Horner was a 2a or 2b defenseman in Toronto while Mantha and Coulter were #1 d-men.

In fact, a #2 d-man was named to an all-star team until 38-39 with Shore-Clapper.

pitseleh

11-03-2007, 04:12 PM

While you are probably correct (Which is why Vasiliev and not Horner is going to go against the top offensive players.) it is worth noting the role argument. Horner was a 2a or 2b defenseman in Toronto while Mantha and Coulter were #1 d-men.

In fact, a #2 d-man was named to an all-star team until 38-39 with Shore-Clapper.

That's a fair enough point about the #2 defenseman, but even during Horner's best offensive season (37/38) when he led defensemen in points and was undeniably Toronto's best defenseman, Coulter was still selected to the All-Star team ahead of him. According to Hockey Outsider's post in the All-Star voting thread, Coulter finished well ahead of Horner. He also finished behind other #2 defensemen prior to that (though it could have been due vote splitting with Day).

I don't think Horner was a bad pick, especially because of his combination of toughness and offense, but I've never thought of him to be at Coulter's level defensively.

Nalyd Psycho

11-03-2007, 04:16 PM

That's a fair enough point about the #2 defenseman, but even during Horner's best offensive season (37/38) when he led defensemen in points and was undeniably Toronto's best defenseman, Coulter was still selected to the All-Star team ahead of him. According to Hockey Outsider's post in the All-Star voting thread, Coulter finished well ahead of Horner. He also finished behind other #2 defensemen prior to that (though it could have been due vote splitting with Day).

I don't think Horner was a bad pick, especially because of his combination of toughness and offense, but I've never thought of him to be at Coulter's level defensively.
I'd agree. If I wanted a shutdown d-man, I would have gone with Coulter, but he wasn't what would offer the most to the overall package that is the Oakland Seals Defense Corps.

EagleBelfour

11-03-2007, 04:27 PM

Interresting debat on Red Horner. Funny thing is, Horner was selected 167th overall, while I decided to go with Art Ross three rank earlier, having Red Horner 2nd on my defenseman list. The fact that their style are completely different, makes them tough to compare. They bring completely different things to a team. I had a tough time deciding who to take a that time, and I would still have a tough time deciding between both, as I've read good thing on both Horner and Ross.

However, I would like to point out that I also believe that his PIM level is a disadvantage. While I accept that Red Horner was more or a fighter than a ''minor-penalty artist'' (That's also the impression I had of him), I think he will have difficulty picking his fights (only to his advantage) and staying out of the box. For example, if John Ferguson (to take my own strong guy) is on his case all night, trash talking and taking shot at him, Horner dosn't strike me as a guy that will be able to stay out of problem; they gonna dance together, no doubt in my mind.

BUT, Horner offensive abilities are underrated and he was one of the most physical defenseman of his ERA.

seventieslord

11-03-2007, 05:11 PM

Worst assembled line of the draft
- Seventieslord, your top line has three great players but I just don't see them working together in real life. Dionne, Denneny and Stewart were all primarily goal-scorers; the latter two appear to have been surprisingly weak playmakers given their roles on their teams. Three players with a shoot-first mentality won't work. Stewart and Denneny were also apparently terribly slow skaters, which isn't what you want on the top line. Your forwards have good potential but the current top line is just too slow and shooter-heavy.

.

I can see what you're saying, however, if you look at Denneny and Stewart's assist totals and their rankings on their teams, it's not really as bad as you think.

17-18 (no assists were awarded)
18-19 - he had 4 assists, tied for 3rd with the great Frank Nighbour and behind only Cleghorn and Gerard.
19-20 - he had 2 assists, 7th on the team... you win this one.
20-21 - he had 5 assists, tied for 3rd.
21-22 - 12 assists, 2nd on the team behind Broadbent who had 14.
22-23 - led the team with 10, ahead of guys like Boucher, Nighbor, Broadbent, Darrah, and Gerard.
23-24 - he had one assist.... not sure what happened there...
24-25 - he led the team with 15 assists, the rest of the team had 17 total!
25-26 - 12 assists, behind Nighbor by one, the rest of the team had 18 in total.
26-27 - 6 assists, tied for 3rd.
27-29 - we don't really need to talk about these seasons, at 36 and 37 he had lost it by then.

so in this 9-season period, his team leader had an average of 10.4 assists per season, and 2nd place had an average of 7.8. He averaged 7.4 per season. Roughly speaking, he was, on average, 2nd on his team in assists each season. I think that's par for the course with a pure goal-scorer. I'm sure you were wall aware that assist totals are extermely low across the board for these years.... I wasn't sure if this affected your assessment of Denneny's respectable playmaking abilities or not.

If I do the same exercise with stewart, using his 23-year old rookie season up to his 36-year old 2nd last season, the first, second, and third place assist leaders on his teams averaged 19.2, 16.2, and 13.4. He averaged 13.1. Roughly speaking, he was the 3rd best playmaker on his team. It's worth noting, though, that the higher numbers across the board in his later years tend to skew the results further away from my stance. if you take his true prime, in which he played mostly under the passing rules he grew up with, his assists per season of 9.5 match what 2nd on his team averaged.

Neither player was an elite playmaker, but both could hold their own in that area. They've both led their teams in assists. Dionne, on the other hand, was equally adept at setting up goals as he was at scoring them. He led his team in assists in 14 of his first 16 seasons, many times by a wide margin. (once he ended up behind Delvecchio by three and another time he was behind Nicholls by one, but he missed 14 games) - he is my team's elite offensive forward. His speed and playmaking ability will help to counter the mediocrity of the other two both areas. You make it sound like he'll be driving to the net while they'll be just huffing and puffing in the neutral zone. I don't recall that ever being a problem with Dave Andreychuk or Tim Kerr, who were both slow skaters for their time. They'll get open, just like Hull did.

That said, I reserve the right to change my lineup around before we get going, to better suit strengths and weaknesses.... I haven't even named captains yet. Thanks for the feedback!

(at least admit the PP will be dynamite!)

seventieslord

11-03-2007, 05:20 PM

Most overrated player taken
konstantinov was 1 of my favorite players, but i think he's almost always taken too high.
i have a low opinion of red horner. he was never an all star, and was a penalty machine.
i think gerry cheevers is overrated.
smyth, doan.

Konstantinov, agree. Too short of a career, and was really an elite player for just two seasons.
Red Horner, same. I'd never take a guy who takes that many penalties. Probably Mellanby and Baun are my worst offenders and I'm not the least bit worried about them.
Cheevers tends to get overrated too. He has no individual achievements to speak of, statistically or award-wise. He won two cups and was runner-up for two, but if you look at the lineup, it wasn't goaltending that won it. Like Osgood, he was just good enough to not lose it for them.

But Smyth and Doan? These guys are 30 goal scorers in the dead puck era. I don't think anyone is asking them to be major snipers. But they have 3rd/4th line mentalities and skill sets for the ATD. For where they're taken and what's being asked of them, they are not overrated at all.

seventieslord

11-03-2007, 05:22 PM

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft
Joe Thornton went much too high last draft.
.

OK, I've seen this three times now. I'm taking this as a compliment.

pitseleh

11-03-2007, 05:28 PM

OK, I've seen this three times now. I'm taking this as a compliment.

I wouldn't take Thornton ahead of Barry personally, but after that he was the best offensive center available. I think he was a good pick value wise at that point.

seventieslord

11-03-2007, 05:36 PM

I wouldn't take Thornton ahead of Barry personally, but after that he was the best offensive center available. I think he was a good pick value wise at that point.

his size, robust play, and demonstrated ability to make lesser players greater can't be ignored either! :)

Rowdy Roddy Peeper

11-03-2007, 06:01 PM

Cheevers tends to get overrated too. He has no individual achievements to speak of, statistically or award-wise. He won two cups and was runner-up for two, but if you look at the lineup, it wasn't goaltending that won it. Like Osgood, he was just good enough to not lose it for them.

I especially disagree with that comment.

By 1968 he was the number one man in Boston, the savior on a team that had the incomparable Bobby Orr and, soon, Phil Esposito and the other great scoring stars. While all the others were in the offensive zone putting the puck in the net, Cheevers was frequently left to his own devices to prevent goals.

- legendsofhockey

Cheevers is usually cited as the best big-game goalie of the late-'60s/early '70s (he has the record for most consecutive wins by a goalie in the playoffs), and the big games are what I got him for. Individual awards didn't concern him much, nor do they concern me. All he cared about was winning.

Cheevers was considered the finest playoff goalie of his day thanks in part to his team attitude. He didn't care how many goals he let in as long as his Bruins scored one more. Shutouts and trophies meant nothing. Only the Stanley Cup counted. His career playoff record was 53-34, one of the best ratios in league history.

- legendsofhockey

If I had to win a game, Gerry would be the goalie I'd want in the net for my team.

- Don Cherry

What's more, I think I've put together a very sturdy defense in front of him (which, in spite of Orr, he didn't have the benefit of in Boston due to their run-and-gun style) that should help his case further. Regardless, his regular season winning percentage is sparkling to begin with (230-102-74).

seventieslord

11-03-2007, 06:05 PM

I've made two simple moves in my lineup. One involved switching Wendel Clark up to the first line left wing, and putting Denneny down to the 2nd. This is a very Lindy Ruff move as he prefers to roll four balanced line, and also provides other multiple benefits.

Wendel Clark admittedly, is from an ATD standpoint, lacking the pure natural skill to put up big numbers on a first line; however, his skating and defensive awareness are both significantly better than Denneny's, and his ability to leave opponents in a crumpled heap at center ice will have the opposition keeping their heads up more than they'd like to have to. Coupled with Old Poison on the first line, this creates a nastiness not usually seen on a top line, along with room for the undersized Dionne.

Denneny, primarily a shooter (who I've also proven can set them up) gets united with Nicholls, a great skater who is primarily a passer, but can also score; and Dye, who just likes to shoot. With Nicholls being the primary puck carrier and passer, expect a lot of goals to come from the wing on his pretty setups.

Sturminator

11-03-2007, 06:24 PM

Also, while both (Clancy and Vasiliev) played tough, due to their size, neither could be used as our crease clearing, corner battle winning, wear out the injury prone forwards, anti-power forward defender.

I dunno about wearing opposing forwards out, but Vasiliev could certainly clear a crease and win battles along the boards. In spite of "only" being about 6'0" 205 lbs (which in the 70's was above average, to begin with), Vasiliev was known for his exceptional strength. But then, you already knew that; Valery is the most prominent of your returning players.

The point about #2 defensemen is an interesting one. It's true. Shore-Clapper (and this happened only once) was the only pair of defensemen from the same team named as postseason all-stars in the entire era. I don't even know who the next pair was because I haven't had time to go far enough to check, but it's well into the 50's, at least. Johnson and Seibert? Nope. Never all-stars in the same year in New York. The instant Earl Seibert started getting all-star nods in New York, Johnson stopped getting them. Seibert and Coulter? Of course not. They both played in New York and Chicago, but they were traded for each other and never played for the same team at the same time.

None of the Leafs defensemen not named Clancy ever made an all-star squad. Flash Hollett never made a team until after Shore was done and Clapper was washed up. Ott Heller got his one all-star selection in New York the exact year after Art Coulter stopped winning his. Coincidence? It seems to have been something like league policy not to hand out all-star selections to multiple defensemen on the same team. The fact that Shore and Clapper were once 1st teamers in the same year was so notable it's mentioned in Dit Clapper's HHOF write-up seventy years later.

Nalyd Psycho

11-03-2007, 08:49 PM

I dunno about wearing opposing forwards out, but Vasiliev could certainly clear a crease and win battles along the boards. In spite of "only" being about 6'0" 205 lbs (which in the 70's was above average, to begin with), Vasiliev was known for his exceptional strength. But then, you already knew that; Valery is the most prominent of your returning players.

The point about #2 defensemen is an interesting one. It's true. Shore-Clapper (and this happened only once) was the only pair of defensemen from the same team named as postseason all-stars in the entire era. I don't even know who the next pair was because I haven't had time to go far enough to check, but it's well into the 50's, at least. Johnson and Seibert? Nope. Never all-stars in the same year in New York. The instant Earl Seibert started getting all-star nods in New York, Johnson stopped getting them. Seibert and Coulter? Of course not. They both played in New York and Chicago, but they were traded for each other and never played for the same team at the same time.

None of the Leafs defensemen not named Clancy ever made an all-star squad. Flash Hollett never made a team until after Shore was done and Clapper was washed up. Ott Heller got his one all-star selection in New York the exact year after Art Coulter stopped winning his. Coincidence? It seems to have been something like league policy not to hand out all-star selections to multiple defensemen on the same team. The fact that Shore and Clapper were once 1st teamers in the same year was so notable it's mentioned in Dit Clapper's HHOF write-up seventy years later.

Yes, obviously I'm aware of Vasiliev's qualities. But to me, he's best suited against the most skilled forwards, his years checking Kharlamov have him plenty trained. It would be a waste to make him the intimidator. Similar to Tim Horton, some players you don't want in the specialized role that you know they can succeed it. Both Vasiliev and Horton can play the brute, but their overall defensive game means they shouldn't be so confined. If that makes sense.

As for the teammates in post season all-stars.
Next was 1942 with Tommy Anderson and Pat Egan playing for the Brooklyn Americans. 1943 had Boston's pair of Jack Crawford and Flash Hollett on the 2nd pair. '45 had Montreal's Bouchard and Harmon. '46 had Bouchard and Reardon. 47 actually only had reps from two teams, Montreal's Bouchard and Reardon and Detroit's Stewart and Quackenbush.

So, it would appear to me that voters were very nervous to start the trend, but once Shore and Clapper broke the barrier, it was broken for good. Although, I imagine the shrinking size of the league contributed.

VanIslander

11-03-2007, 09:11 PM

Vasiliev is said to have made a dirty hit on Martinec which knocked the tourney all-star right winger out of the gold medal game of the 1974 world championships. There was supposedly an intent to injure. But after what happened to the Soviets in the '72 Summit Series it might not have been so out of place in terms of rough and tumble 70's hockey.

Nalyd Psycho

11-03-2007, 09:12 PM

Sturminator

11-03-2007, 09:46 PM

One small point about Red Horner and penalty minutes.

Horner's regular-season PIMs/game: 2.58
Horner's postseason PIMs/game: 2.39

Unlike many players, Horner's PIMs actually went down in the playoffs. Here are some of Horner's contemporaries among the more physical defensemen:

Ching Johnson's regular-season PIMs/game: 1.86
Ching Johnson's postseason PIMs/game: 2.65

Eddie Shore's regular-season PIMs/game: 1.87
Eddie Shore's postseason PIMs/game: 3.25

Sylvio Mantha's regular-season PIMs/game: 1.23
Sylvio Mantha's postseason PIMs/game: 1.88

Art Coulter's regular-season PIMs/game: 1.29
Art Coulter's postseason PIMs/game: 1.53

What you say? Red Horner goes from being arguably the most penalized "regular player" (meaning not a goon) in NHL regular-season history to being only the third most penalized defenseman of his own era in the postseason. Eddie Shore wins the crown going away, which should come as a surprise to absolutely no one, except for perhaps the GM who said he'd "never" take someone who drew that many penalties. If such stats were kept for the entirety of his career, I'd imagine that Sprague Cleghorn would probably end up somewhere in Shore territory, as well, but that's only a guess.

It's hard to say exactly why Horner's PIMs go down in the postseason while everyone else's go up, but it's probably nothing more than Dick Irvin telling Red to pick his spots more carefully come playoff time. Although he clearly liked to fight, Horner must have been a fairly disciplined player if he was able to lower his PIMs when he needed to while almost everyone else's were going up. I get the impression from reading about Horner that he was a good team guy who did what it took to win, whether that meant fighting or holding his temper and playing hockey.

Once again, the true picture of Red Horner the player has been distorted by his less-than-stellar Legends biography.

nik jr

11-04-2007, 09:15 AM

But Smyth and Doan? These guys are 30 goal scorers in the dead puck era. I don't think anyone is asking them to be major snipers. But they have 3rd/4th line mentalities and skill sets for the ATD. For where they're taken and what's being asked of them, they are not overrated at all.

yeah, i shouldn't have put them in there because i consider them overrated in the NHL, not the ATD.

i realize they're the coveted hard working, gritty forwards who can score, but they also aren't really great players. from the all the praise smyth gets, you'd think he was an elite player. then there's the video tribute in edmonton, as if his number were being retired.

i once heard ryan smyth described by a game commentator as "the perfect playoff performer."
????
of course, commentators often exaggerate, but let's be serious.

MXD

11-04-2007, 10:55 AM

I especially disagree with that comment.

- legendsofhockey

Cheevers is usually cited as the best big-game goalie of the late-'60s/early '70s (he has the record for most consecutive wins by a goalie in the playoffs), and the big games are what I got him for. Individual awards didn't concern him much, nor do they concern me. All he cared about was winning.

- legendsofhockey

- Don Cherry

What's more, I think I've put together a very sturdy defense in front of him (which, in spite of Orr, he didn't have the benefit of in Boston due to their run-and-gun style) that should help his case further. Regardless, his regular season winning percentage is sparkling to begin with (230-102-74).

I agree with you that Cheevers went... actually where he belongs : one of the worst starting goalies as far as regular season is conerned (I have many backups ahead of him as well), but would come big in the playoffs. I wouldn't take him but... definitely a starter.

However, a Don Cherry quote saying he would use Cheevers whenever he needs a big game pretty much has negative value concerning Cheevers's value, as far as I am concerned...

Rowdy Roddy Peeper

11-04-2007, 11:55 AM

I agree with you that Cheevers went... actually where he belongs : one of the worst starting goalies as far as regular season is conerned (I have many backups ahead of him as well), but would come big in the playoffs. I wouldn't take him but... definitely a starter.

However, a Don Cherry quote saying he would use Cheevers whenever he needs a big game pretty much has negative value concerning Cheevers's value, as far as I am concerned...

I'd put him in about the middle-of-the-pack for regular season goalies.

I mean, despite his lack of individual accolades (which can be explained in part by the Bruins' style at the time), he did win more than twice as many games as he lost. The only other ATD starting goalie who can make that claim is Dryden.

Can't argue with your assessment that he was taken about where he should be though. The lack of hardware hurts him.

P.S. Hey, Grapes won a game or two in his day. I'd say his word holds value.

BlueBleeder

11-04-2007, 12:12 PM

Responding to some of the thoughts on my team...

Naslund on the top line. I didn't want him on the top line at first, but when I missed out on my other picks at LW had to adjust. Even if we consider him inconsistant I have him lined up with two very constant performers in Yzerman and McDonald, and unlike the Canucks in years past with my balanced offense him scoring won't make or break the team.

Stastny, I could not beleive he was available that late. He is one of my favorite players of alltime and is very underated.

Svedberg. The way defense was going off the board, I decided not to wait on him.

Murray. A bad pick I admit, I don't know much about the older coaches. Came down to him and a couple of other playoff chokers.

God Bless Canada

11-04-2007, 02:20 PM

I'd put him in about the middle-of-the-pack for regular season goalies.

I mean, despite his lack of individual accolades (which can be explained in part by the Bruins' style at the time), he did win more than twice as many games as he lost. The only other ATD starting goalie who can make that claim is Dryden.

Can't argue with your assessment that he was taken about where he should be though. The lack of hardware hurts him.

P.S. Hey, Grapes won a game or two in his day. I'd say his word holds value.
I had Cheevers in the middle of my list for starting goalies. I throw the regular season stats out the window for him. A win was a win, a loss was a loss. It didn't matter how many goals he gave up, or the number of shots. All he wanted was to win.

He was terrific in the playoffs, and that's what matters most. One of the top clutch goalies of all-time.

Sturminator

11-04-2007, 03:13 PM

Aside from the fact that he was a notorious wanderer, the one thing that bothers me about Cheevers is that despite his reputation as a great playoff performer, he was actually only a true #1 goalie once for a Cup winner. Gerry was fantastic in 69-70, going 12-1 in the playoffs and dropping his GAA by about half a goal from his regular-season numbers.

Ok, that's great, but he was actually in a playoff platoon with Ed Johnston in 71-72 when the Big Bad Bruins won their second Cup. Cheevers went 6-2 in 8 games and Johnston went 6-1 in 7. Cheevers gave up 21 goals and Johnston gave up 15. Of course, Gerry did have two shutouts in that Cup run (including the game 6 clincher against the Leafs), but he also got lit up a couple of times. It was a true platoon and Cheevers was arguably the weaker link, though Boston did win the Cup so there's not much to complain about either way.

Outside of the Cup years, Cheevers' playoff record is a bit up and down, though not badly so. He was outstanding in 68-69, arguably Boston's best player (including Bobby Orr) and only lost to the Habs in the second round on three overtime heartbreakers. He was good in 75-76, but the Bruins got beaten in the first round, anyway, and he was solid though unspectacular in the late 70's. He was pretty bad in 67-68 and may have cost the Bruins the Cup in 70-71 (they were by far the best regular-season team) when he got run through by Montreal to the tune of 12 goals in games six and seven of a heartbreaking first round series.

Cheevers is the best goalie taken after George Hainesworth, in my opinion (which means I've got him rated 19th best), but I think the gap is actually bigger than a lot of people realize. Cheevers definitely had his moments in the playoffs (two outstanding runs, at least, one of which culminated in a Cup), but in an all-time context, I think his reputation as a money goalie is a bit overblown. I think he went at least a round too early, though given the scramble for goalies early in this draft, I understand the reasoning completely. Concerning the GMs who missed out on the tier of goalies ending at Hainesworth, I think BM made the shrewdest move (and got the best value) with Lumley in the 11th round.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper

11-04-2007, 04:37 PM

I had Cheevers in the middle of my list for starting goalies. I throw the regular season stats out the window for him. A win was a win, a loss was a loss. It didn't matter how many goals he gave up, or the number of shots. All he wanted was to win.

He was terrific in the playoffs, and that's what matters most. One of the top clutch goalies of all-time.

That's the way I look at it. I tried to build my team around scrappy players driven to win, and Cheevers fits that mold perfectly.

Aside from the fact that he was a notorious wanderer,

Plante. ;)

the one thing that bothers me about Cheevers is that despite his reputation as a great playoff performer, he was actually only a true #1 goalie once for a Cup winner. Gerry was fantastic in 69-70, going 12-1 in the playoffs and dropping his GAA by about half a goal from his regular-season numbers.

Ok, that's great, but he was actually in a playoff platoon with Ed Johnston in 71-72 when the Big Bad Bruins won their second Cup. Cheevers went 6-2 in 8 games and Johnston went 6-1 in 7. Cheevers gave up 21 goals and Johnston gave up 15. Of course, Gerry did have two shutouts in that Cup run (including the game 6 clincher against the Leafs), but he also got lit up a couple of times. It was a true platoon and Cheevers was arguably the weaker link, though Boston did win the Cup so there's not much to complain about either way.

True, though I've taken that into account and made sure that he does have a very high quality back-up in Chabot to help share the duties.

He was always a goalie who had a relatively light workload, and I never expected him to take on a Brodeur-like percentage of games played. He's got a platoon on the Plains too.

Outside of the Cup years, Cheevers' playoff record is a bit up and down, though not badly so. He was outstanding in 68-69, arguably Boston's best player (including Bobby Orr) and only lost to the Habs in the second round on three overtime heartbreakers. He was good in 75-76, but the Bruins got beaten in the first round, anyway, and he was solid though unspectacular in the late 70's. He was pretty bad in 67-68 and may have cost the Bruins the Cup in 70-71 (they were by far the best regular-season team) when he got run through by Montreal to the tune of 12 goals in games six and seven of a heartbreaking first round series.

If you take the Cup years away from a superb playoff goalie like Parent, he doesn't look so hot either.

'67-'68 was Cheevers' first NHL playoff experience ever, so I don't hold a sub-par performance against him there. Cripes, even Benedict had an 8.67 GAA in his first 3-game playoff appearance. '70-'71 was a let-down in the final 2 games, but the Bruins did come up against a young phenom on a roll.

At any rate, even outside of the Cup years, Cheevers still had two consecutive runs to the Finals as a #1 goalie. Not too shabby in my book.

Cheevers is the best goalie taken after George Hainesworth, in my opinion (which means I've got him rated 19th best), but I think the gap is actually bigger than a lot of people realize. Cheevers definitely had his moments in the playoffs (two outstanding runs, at least, one of which culminated in a Cup), but in an all-time context, I think his reputation as a money goalie is a bit overblown. I think he went at least a round too early, though given the scramble for goalies early in this draft, I understand the reasoning completely. Concerning the GMs who missed out on the tier of goalies ending at Hainesworth, I think BM made the shrewdest move (and got the best value) with Lumley in the 11th round.

The goalie scramble did catch me off-guard (I won't make any bones about the fact that I thought I could get Benedict in the late 3rd), but I'm confident I got the best goalie available. How much longer he would've remained on board is up for debate, but he went in the early 6th last ATD, if memory serves, and goalies were in higher demand this time around.

I agree about Lumley from a value standpoint, for sure. But if you're still working on that "take away the Cup year(s)" theory, it gets downright ugly for Lumley come playoff time.

seventieslord

11-04-2007, 09:25 PM

yeah, i shouldn't have put them in there because i consider them overrated in the NHL, not the ATD.

i realize they're the coveted hard working, gritty forwards who can score, but they also aren't really great players. from the all the praise smyth gets, you'd think he was an elite player. then there's the video tribute in edmonton, as if his number were being retired.

i once heard ryan smyth described by a game commentator as "the perfect playoff performer."
????
of course, commentators often exaggerate, but let's be serious.

I agree with what you're saying, they've become Canadian folk heroes for their lunchpail work ethics, leadership by example, modest scoring (usually being the best player on mediocre teams) and the roles they've played for Team Canada.

All-stars, in today's NHL? No. First-line players today? Yes. Worthwhile 4th, or even 3rd-liners in the ATD? Yeah.

And the question could have been interpreted in two different ways, so I guess we just agree to agree now that we understand eachother :)

Sturminator

11-05-2007, 02:00 AM

Plante. ;)

Rayner...

As an aside, I'm fairly certain that the goaltending platoon in Boston in 71-72 was a direct result of Cheevers' meltdown against Montreal at the end of Boston's run in 70-71. Gerry became a steady playoff performer later on in his career, but he ran hot and cold as a young goalie. He had two great runs in 68-69 and 69-70 and then a major hiccup, to which the team reacted by platooning him the next season. Your investment in a strong backup goalie (though I'd have gone with Hap Holmes - BM's mid-round goalie picks were very strong) was wise, and not only for the regular season.

Cheevers could be a superb playoff goalie and often was, but you know me; I value consistency, moreso in goal than at any other position. I agree with you that Cheevers probably wouldn't have lasted until your late 6th rounder (I'm guessing Wisent would have taken him in the 5th or 6th, at the very least), so I guess you picked him where you had to. At any rate, Cheevers' reputation as a playoff goalie is still mostly deserved. He's really only got that one blemish (you're right that knocking him for not beating a great Habs team in his first playoff year is rather unfair), but I thought it should be noted, all the same. Reputations are often a good way of distorting reality, one way or another, which is probably why Nietzsche said that man can suffer a bad conscience more easily than a bad reputation.

God Bless Canada

11-05-2007, 10:56 AM

The new winner for biggest reach of the draft: Ilya Kovalchuk or Geoff Courtnall for LL's defensive line. (Not sure which one you're trying to pass off as your defensive line). Kovalchuk is poor defensively. We're all waiting for the confrontations and the meltdown between moody Ilya and hard-nosed Imlach. (Incidentally, I think Imlach is a terrific coach, in the right situation. Put him on a team loaded with hard-workers and high-character players, and a team that doesn't have hot dogs or cancers, and Imlach can be a championship-winning coach). If Imlach has Ilya on a defensive line, it would be a disaster.

I watched Geoff Courtnall played dozens of games when he was a Canuck. Not necessarily my type of player, but I couldn't help but be a fan of the guy. Maybe it's because his arrival from St. Louis was part of the trade that turned the Canucks around. Or maybe it's because he owned my favourite restaurant of all-time. He was gifted, but he was a streaky producer. Scored some of the biggest goals in Canuck history, including the goal to get us into the 1991 playoffs. But he was not reliable defensively. In fact, he could often be a non-factor. Put him on a checking line, and he will be a major liability.

LapierreSports

11-05-2007, 11:20 AM

Biggest Steal of the draft

Lindsay at #30
Bathgate at #64
Lach at #86
D.Savard at #189

Biggest Reach of the draft

Gainey at #69
Lindros at #114
Carbonneau at #122
Alexei Kasatonov #137

Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft

Biggest blunder selection of the draft

A Player finally getting respect in the draft

A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft

A player you've discovered in this draft

Fleming Mackell, the guy who would always score on a rebound in front of the net.

Most underrated player taken

Bathgate
Ratelle

Most overrated player taken

Gainey at #69
Carbonneau at #122

Favourite line of the draft

Well its hard to choose between the French Connection Line and the Party Line. Good job MDX on reuniting Moore, Richard and Richard. Just watched the 1956-1960 Habs tribute on VHS, that line was on fire ! Also like the Kraut Line.

Best assembled line of the draft

Moore, Richard and Richard.

Worst assembled line of the draft

A funny/dramatic story (related to the ATD) you've learned about since the start of the draft

Well, Ive been working in a concession stand at the Bell Center for 6 years now and Ive read that Eddie Shore, as a coach, would force the scratch players to work the popcorn machines in the concession stands. Tought this was pretty funny and imagine working with the sracth guys of the Habs like Grabovski, Gorges ,etc.

Murphy

11-05-2007, 11:40 AM

Biggest Reach of the draft
Boivan @ 156. There were many better Dmen still out there.

Thats funny to me in that you were the guy I thought was going to select him, so I grabbed him early.

No doubt there were more talented defensemen out there at the time but not for the blueline corps I was looking to build. Still a hard hitting, hall of famer at that point doesn't seem to me to be that big a reach? Not many in that catagory left at that point of the draft.

LapierreSports

11-05-2007, 12:42 PM

Joliat was the Theo Fleury of his era, but much more talented. What he lacked in size, he made up for in aggression and fearlessness.

Read Joe Pelletier's blog (http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2006/05/aurel-joliat.html) for stories about Joliat attacking Shore, fighting Punch Broadbent at age 70, and planning a comeback (who says old stars think they can't compete in today's NHL)?

Thanks for the link. Love the Proadbent incident ! Hilarious ! I still remember Joliat at the Forum in 1986 I think, skating like a little kid and falling all over the place. That was priceless.

VanIslander

11-05-2007, 05:42 PM

Biggest Reach of the draft

Lindros at #114
Eight (8) dominant seasons isn't enough of a peak?

Bobby Orr only had nine (9) wonderful seasons in Boston.

It's amazing how different we view a career that ends early due to injury and a career that continues at a fraction of a percentage of the great past.

If Lindros had retired in 2000 we would be esteeming him as a top-100 talent whose career was tragically ended by injury. Instead he stayed around and looked a painful shell of his former self, allowing our disappointment at the situation tarnish the memories of a man who shouldn't be remembered for the last few years.

The knock on Lindros is that so many expected him to have a top-10 or top-5 all-time type of career. He is in the 101-149 range all-time in terms of all-time career and given the sort of skills he brings to the Raiders it was important to take him AT MOST one round earlier than he should. One of the biggest reaches of the draft? Not even close.

Frightened Inmate #2

11-05-2007, 05:58 PM

Eight (8) dominant seasons isn't enough of a peak?

Bobby Orr only had nine (9) wonderful seasons in Boston.

That is one weak argument, I mean really look at what Bobby Orr accomplished in those 9 years with the Bruins, then look at what Lindros did in those 8, sure he had all the talent in the world but his attitude and injuries held him back... he had one season in which he was the best player in the league and past that he was an oft injured center that I don't think lived up to the expectations that were put on him. Everyone expected a player who could see the ice like Gretzky while being able to hit as hard as anyone in the game and if you take it into context even during his prime having just three seasons with more than 40 goals isn't that good, especially when you consider Lindros played in the early 90s, which with expansion resulted in a huge rise in the goals scored across the league.

Without injuries you are right but you need to take them into consideration when determining Lindros's place in hockey history.

VanIslander

11-05-2007, 06:11 PM

...look at what Lindros did in those 8, sure he had all the talent in the world but his attitude and injuries held him back..
How did his attitude detract from his style of play or success at it?

1992-93 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 61 41 34 75 147
1993-94 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 65 44 53 97 103
1994-95 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 46 29 41 70 60
1995-96 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 73 47 68 115 163
1996-97 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 52 32 47 79 136
1997-98 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 63 30 41 71 134
1998-99 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 71 40 53 93 120
1999-00 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 55 27 32 59 83

2001-02 New York Rangers NHL 72 37 36 73 138

There is his first nine (9) seasons, I extending an extra year for comparison purposes, though of course his retiring after his season off would have been natural and preserve his legacy. He was of course much more than a goal scorer over those first 8 seasons.

He was great for 8 to 9 seasons and while he may not have have played 82 game seasons it did not prevent him from having among the best of seasons over the eight (8) year span he was a Flyer.

I never for a moment said he was as great as Orr. An analogy shouldn't be taken too far! It was a counterfactual argument: If orr played another five years with bad knees and gave up his end-to-end rushes, playing smart first passes and being dominant at the point on the powerplay, his drop to 70% of his former self would have tarnished his legacy. Mike Bossy is more legendary for retiring after 10 seasons than if he kept playing until he was 39 years old.

If you think Lindros did not have a 101-149 all-time type of career then say so. Then indeed he would be one of the biggest reaches of the draft.

Frightened Inmate #2

11-05-2007, 06:47 PM

How did his attitude detract from his style of play or success at it?

1992-93 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 61 41 34 75 147
1993-94 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 65 44 53 97 103
1994-95 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 46 29 41 70 60
1995-96 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 73 47 68 115 163
1996-97 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 52 32 47 79 136
1997-98 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 63 30 41 71 134
1998-99 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 71 40 53 93 120
1999-00 Philadelphia Flyers NHL 55 27 32 59 83

2001-02 New York Rangers NHL 72 37 36 73 138

There is his first nine (9) seasons, I extending an extra year for comparison purposes, though of course his retiring after his season off would have been natural and preserve his legacy. He was of course much more than a goal scorer over those first 8 seasons.

For comparison purposes look at where he was relative to other players in the league...

1992-93: 2 players scored over 70 goals and Lindros wasn't even the top scorer on his team.
1993-94: Once again Lindros not in the top 10 in goal scoring/points and was second on his team in points
1994-95: Lindros tied for the lead in points and was 6th in a shortened season, this I would qualify as a great season but there does need to be a bit of an astrix just because of the lockout and the shortened season.
1996-97: Lindros 9th in goals and 6th in points.
Then the injuries hit
1998-99: 7th in goals and 7th in points.
2001-02: 9th in goals.

I understand that there is more than points in the game of hockey but Lindros wasn't a dominant defensive player and while he did have a physical side, I don't see him stacking up so well in an all time draft from an offensive standpoint to justify selecting him where he was selected. 175-200 is likely the right spot and while it isn't the biggest reach he was picked to early. Personally I think he does a much better job as a second line center than he does a first due to the injury concerns and the fact he really hasn't lead a team to much of anything.

VanIslander

11-05-2007, 07:02 PM

Personally I think he does a much better job as a second line center than he does a first due to the injury concerns
That is exactly why I drafted big, talented Hlinka for the bench. :D

Gilmour is a great second line centre since that position is usually the guy who is matched up against the opposition's top line centre.

God Bless Canada

11-05-2007, 07:14 PM

I wouldn't say Lindros had eight dominant seasons. And I certainly wouldn't say his dominance for those eight seasons was on a level of Orr's dominance. If you're looking for that big, skilled centre who can dominate in every possible way, and you're willing to look past his character and attitude flaws, take the Big E. I wouldn't pick him, but he isn't a reach at 114.

I'd say he had four, maybe five, dominant seasons (1995, 1995-96, 1996--97, 1998-99, maybe 1997-98), and one dominant playoff (the first three rounds in 1997). He was really good in 1992-93, and okay in 1993-94 (a lot of people wanted a lot more from him that year), and all right in 1997-98. Don't let the stats blind you for his performance in 1999-2000: he apologized to his teammates partway through the season for letting his feud with Bobby Clarke affect his play.

He won a Hart in 1995, was a second-team all-star in 1996 (in what was likely the best year for centres in the last 15 years), was dominant in 1996-97 after missing the first few weeks with an injury, was the best player in the first three rounds of the 1997 playoffs, and was playing what some believed to be the best hockey of his career in 1998-99 before the collapsed lung injury. (And that was the real turning point in his career).

He's good enough to be a first line centre, and good enough for the 114th pick in the draft, when you consider what he brings on the ice.

LapierreSports

11-06-2007, 10:05 AM

Eight (8) dominant seasons isn't enough of a peak?

Bobby Orr only had nine (9) wonderful seasons in Boston.

It's amazing how different we view a career that ends early due to injury and a career that continues at a fraction of a percentage of the great past.

If Lindros had retired in 2000 we would be esteeming him as a top-100 talent whose career was tragically ended by injury. Instead he stayed around and looked a painful shell of his former self, allowing our disappointment at the situation tarnish the memories of a man who shouldn't be remembered for the last few years.

The knock on Lindros is that so many expected him to have a top-10 or top-5 all-time type of career. He is in the 101-149 range all-time in terms of all-time career and given the sort of skills he brings to the Raiders it was important to take him AT MOST one round earlier than he should. One of the biggest reaches of the draft? Not even close.

Im not the biggest Eric Lindros fan and would never draft him on my team. Especially when Sid Abel, A.Delvecchio and even Keon and Ullman are available. The fact that Lindros continued to play after 2000 has no impact on how I feel about him. Yes, he had dominants season, but Lindros would never be the 1st center I would take on my team, give me someone who had a longer consistent peak. And anyone who refuses to play in Quebec City, where they live and breed hockey, after being drafted out of juniors should be banned from hockey. Who in their right mind would turn down an opportunity to play hockey in the NHL in Canada when you are a JUNIOR player. I dont want that crybaby-primadonna attitude on my team ,especially at pick #114

VanIslander

11-06-2007, 01:04 PM

...anyone who refuses to play in Quebec City, where they live and breed hockey, after being drafted out of juniors should be banned from hockey. Who in their right mind would turn down an opportunity to play hockey in the NHL in Canada when you are a JUNIOR player.
Gee, the grudge runs deep in Montreal.

MXD

11-06-2007, 01:13 PM

Gee, the grudge runs deep in Montreal.

Well, the fact that he refused to play with the team that drafted him is condemnable, wherever is was. And it was still Quebec --- not a big market, but a team where people are really hockey-passioned.

I think he's a 1st center. He'd just rather have a darn solid/proven/leader/intangibled to play behind him. Regardless of questions surrounding him, Gilmour is such a guy. Absolutely not the best in that regards, but fits the bill.

Furthermore, he's way too big for Keira Knightley.

VanIslander

11-06-2007, 01:26 PM

I think he's a 1st center. He'd just rather have a darn solid/proven/leader/intangibled to play behind him. Regardless of questions surrounding him, Gilmour is such a guy. Absolutely not the best in that regards, but fits the bill.
Yeah, I picked up Dougie and Eric close together in the same round, and you'll notice that Lindros is NOT a captain. Gilmour and Brind'amour are alternate captains for the Raiders and Stevens the captain. Tons of solid/proven/leader/intangibles. With one of the greatest Czech centres, 6'2 strong Hlinka able to step in to cover any injury or suspensions.

Furthermore, he's way too big for Keira Knightley.
:biglaugh: now THAT's a good one!

Rick Middleton

11-06-2007, 01:34 PM

Eight (8) dominant seasons isn't enough of a peak?

Bobby Orr only had nine (9) wonderful seasons in Boston.

VanI, for mentioning the Big E's name with our Lord and Saviour, his Royal Highness, Bobby of the Golden Stick, you deserve a kick in the junk. Just be happy we're not in the same city, elsewise I'd be jumping in my car now.

All praise Bobby!

VanIslander

11-06-2007, 01:52 PM

...our Lord and Saviour, his Royal Highness, Bobby of the Golden Stick, you deserve a kick in the junk. All praise Bobby!
a decent rookie and sophomore season and then - whammo - a perfect six (6) seasons from him :yo:

clearly the most respected 6 seasons of play in hockey history (from age 21 to 27 he was a hockey god)

sorry for asking one to imagine him keep playing at 60-70% of his former self (due to injury) past age 27, well into his thirties... i realize that's blasephemy

LapierreSports

11-06-2007, 01:56 PM

Gee, the grudge runs deep in Montreal.

Alright ive calmed down. You guys make good points with Gilmour wich are tough to argue with. Your lucky you drafted Gilmour VanI !

VanIslander

11-06-2007, 02:02 PM

Alright ive calmed down. You guys make good points with Gilmour wich are tough to argue with. Your lucky you drafted Gilmour VanI !
http://www.alyshia.com/greg/pics/gimourpin.jpg
Raider Extraordinaire

Nalyd Psycho

11-06-2007, 05:21 PM

Biggest Steals of the draft
Newsy Lalonde #70-If I get a low 1st rounder, don't be surprised to see Newsy shoot up 50 spots. Belongs in the same range as Lafluer and Esposito.
Cyclone Taylor #80-Dynamic game breakers shouldn't slip to the 3rd.
Frank Boucher #108-The prototype for the modern center should go in the top 80.
Frank Nighbor #150-People say Dave Keon always goes low, but Nighbor is a rich man's Keon and goes even lower.
Moose Johnson #248-Possibly the best d-man of his era, could rise 100 spots.
Al Arbour (Coach) #333-Could go rounds earlier.
Hap Holmes #449-Clutch goalies like Fuhr and Cheevers go very high, but this 4 time cup winner gets no love as a potential starter.
Frank Mcgee #540-Probably a very good #2 center, but lack of info is a hindrance.
Viktor Konovalenko #613-A high end back-up. With a pick this astute I'd drop Bar******* and fill in holes elsewhere...
Vladimir Martinec #649-How does one of the top 40 RWs of all time slip to the last round?
Biggest Reaches of the draft
Paul Coffey #42-Not diverse enough to be a #1.
Frank Mahovlich #61-A malcontent who's the perfect example of what a choker looks like on a great team. You have to really build around him and he's just not worth the effort.
Bob Gainey #69-Taking a specialist this early handicaps your team from the word go.
Vladimir Krutov #193-Too risky to be top 200.
Sydney Crosby #251-WAAAAAAAY too soon.
Dick Irvin (Coach) #393-This might be controversial, but I wouldn't touch him with a 2 thousand foot pole in the last round of the minor league draft if I needed a coach. There is simply no way in hell a Dick Irwin coached team can survive 80 games and 4 playoff rounds. None. His teams frequently hit the wall after 50-70 games and 2 playoff rounds. He asks too much of his players and he gets it. Then they don't have anything left in the tank after 10 games of playoff hockey. There's a reason that his teams are notorious chokers, him. He has 3 times as many finals losses than any other coach in history. That is huge.
Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft
Norm Ullman #139-It's difficult to get a legitimate fist line center after the 4th round, but, by reuniting Ullman and Howe, Seattle got a viable #1 at the end of the 5th.
Biggest blunder selection of the draft
The aforementioned Dick Irwin pick. If BM67 took Gorman, I would concede defeat, I just don't see how anyone could beat Gorman coaching that defense. But with Irwin, I now see no way they can possibly win.
A Player finally getting respect in the draft
Johnny Gottselig #410-He deserves to be a #2 LW, a very good clutch performer.
A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft
Tretiak.
A player you've discovered in this draft
Mostly guys Sturminator pushed for behind the scenes like Jack Adams, Bruce Stuart and Billy Boucher.
Most underrated player taken
Frank Nighbor.
Most overrated player taken
Mark Messier
Favourite line of the draft
Howe-Gretzky-Bathgate :)
But, being unbiased.
Kharlamov-Morenz-Hedberg-Has it's problems, but DAMN! That'd be fun to watch.
Best assembled line of the draft
Jackson-Trottier-Hextall
Hull-Boucher-Nedomansky
Metz-Otto-Smith
Bailey-Broten-Mullen-Would likely end up the most underestimated line of the draft.
Conacher-Ullman-Howe
Bentley-Bentley-Neely
Firsov-Fedorov-Mikhailov
Klukay-Oates-Hull
Smith-Kennedy-Mosienko
Worst assembled line of the draft
Whatever line Messier's on. I HATE MARK MESSIER!

Rick Middleton

11-06-2007, 05:28 PM

http://www.alyshia.com/greg/pics/gimourpin.jpg
Raider Extraordinaire

Whoa. I'm sure Douggie wants that picture buried and never dug up again. Yikes.

arrbez

11-06-2007, 05:30 PM

Whoa. I'm sure Douggie wants that picture buried and never dug up again. Yikes.

I've been searching for years now for a picture of Douggie wearing cow pants for the Got Milk? ads. Anybody have one?

seventieslord

11-06-2007, 05:59 PM

I've been searching for years now for a picture of Douggie wearing cow pants for the Got Milk? ads. Anybody have one?

I know the ad, but I am pretty sure it was not a part of the "got milk?" campaign.

arrbez

11-06-2007, 06:10 PM

I know the ad, but I am pretty sure it was not a part of the "got milk?" campaign.

You could be right. Maybe Gilmour just likes cow-pants? And as a faithfull disciple of The Douggie, who am I to question that?

BM67

11-06-2007, 10:43 PM

Biggest Reaches of the draft
Dick Irvin (Coach) #393-This might be controversial, but I wouldn't touch him with a 2 thousand foot pole in the last round of the minor league draft if I needed a coach. There is simply no way in hell a Dick Irwin coached team can survive 80 games and 4 playoff rounds. None. His teams frequently hit the wall after 50-70 games and 2 playoff rounds. He asks too much of his players and he gets it. Then they don't have anything left in the tank after 10 games of playoff hockey. There's a reason that his teams are notorious chokers, him. He has 3 times as many finals losses than any other coach in history. That is huge.
Biggest blunder selection of the draft
The aforementioned Dick Irwin pick. If BM67 took Gorman, I would concede defeat, I just don't see how anyone could beat Gorman coaching that defense. But with Irwin, I now see no way they can possibly win.

Strange how:

Irvin won as many Stanley Cups as your two coaches combined.

He won more Stanley Cup Final games than your two coaches won playoffs games.

Your two coaches 6 first place finishes resulted in 1 Stanley Cup and no other Finals appearances, while Irvin's 8 first place teams won 2 Cups and made the Finals 6 times.

Irvin was voted to the all-star teams 9 times (3 first, 6 second), while your coaches were only voted twice (once each, both as 2nd team).

Neither Chicago or Toronto made the Finals the year after he left them. Toronto even had Hap Day as coach and Turk Broda in nets.

Getting your team to the Finals 16 times over 24 years is a bad thing.

Irvin is such a bad selection that you don't even have to look at the rest of my roster.

Leaf Lander

11-06-2007, 11:38 PM

I know the ad, but I am pretty sure it was not a part of the "got milk?" campaign.

it was indeed part of the got milk campaign

Nalyd Psycho

11-06-2007, 11:40 PM

Getting your team to the Finals 16 times over 24 years is a bad thing.

When you make 16 trips to the finals and have 3 wins, that is one massive black flag. There's no other way to look at it.

ck26

11-07-2007, 12:30 AM

When you make 16 trips to the finals and have 3 wins, that is one massive black flag. There's no other way to look at it.I'm with BM67 on this one ... making 16 trips to the finals, regardless of outcome, is pretty decent. Just making the playoffs 16 times is pretty decent.

nik jr

11-07-2007, 03:23 AM

When you make 16 trips to the finals and have 3 wins, that is one massive black flag. There's no other way to look at it.

i think he won 4 times, not 3.

i would definitely not go as far as you regarding irvin, but it is an interesting argument. considering all the great players he had, 4 wins is not very many.

I'm with BM67 on this one ... making 16 trips to the finals, regardless of outcome, is pretty decent. Just making the playoffs 16 times is pretty decent.

making the playoffs in irvin's time wasn't really a great accomplishment, imo. think only 1 or 2 teams (of 8 or 6 teams) missed the playoffs.

i'm not sure about this, but nalyd's point is very interesting.

getting to the finals 16 times is certainly a great accomplishment, but i would also say that the purpose of a great coach is supposed to be to put strong teams (like the 30s maple leafs and the mid 40s-early 50s habs), that were already talented enough to go deep in the playoffs, over the top. it seems to me that irvin's teams often underperformed.

irvin coached really good teams, but probably didn't win as much as he should have and had a terrible record in the finals. it seems to me that if you just covered up irvin's name and showed the rosters and the playoff results, many doubt the coach's ability.

irvin coached great maple leafs teams that featured all star team regulars clancy and the kid line, plus day and horner, but they only won the cup once.
in the '38 finals, they lost to chicago, the 2nd worst team in the league, with the worst offense and 2nd worst D. i think that chicago team is often considered the worst to ever win.
it seems that toronto team could have been a dynasty, but it wasn't. in irvin's time with a consistently very good toronto team, 6 other teams (habs, red wings, rangers, maroons, blackhawks, bruins) won the cup. they were not always just losing to better teams.

(seems to me to be sort of similar to the 60s blackhawks single win.)

irvin did better with montreal, although probably any decent coach could have won in '44, since the other teams were decimated by the war. but it seems to me that montreal should have won more than they did. they could have been the best team of the 40s, but toronto was.
maybe kennedy's statement that toronto won 5 cups because of day's coaching is true. irvin's habs lost to toronto often, despite probably having a better team.
(i was hoping we could get hap day, but pitseleh drafted him 1 spot ahead of us. :banghead:)
durnan is frequently criticized for losing to toronto, but irvin seems to escape that same criticism. but maybe he deserves some of the blame.

seventieslord

11-07-2007, 08:26 AM

it was indeed part of the got milk campaign

The Dougie with Cow Legs ad was from the 1993-94 season. "Got Milk?" didn't start until at least 1996, and was a completely different format. it was mostly magazine ads with celebrities with a milk moustache..... so how is the gilmour ad part of that campaign?

BM67

11-07-2007, 09:50 AM

How Irvin did vs teams with better or worse records in the playoffs:

Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 17 - 5 - 12 - 80 - 33 - 46 - 1
Equal 1 - 0 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 3 - 0
Worse 28 - 21 - 7 - 106 - 66 - 39 - 1

Hmmm... lost 12 Finals, but only lost 7 series total to teams with inferior records, perhaps making the Finals wasn't too bad after all.

Cecil Hart
Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 4 - 2 - 2 - 14 - 7 - 6 - 1
Equal 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Worse 8 - 4 - 4 - 23 - 9 - 11 - 3

Irvin's teams lost after they hit the wall? They don't have a losing record to teams with inferior records.

Tommy Gorman
Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 5 - 3 - 2 - 14 - 7 - 5 - 2
Equal 1 - 1 - 0 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0
Worse 4 - 3 - 1 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 2

Hmmm... Doesn't look too bad, until you realize that he won only one series outside of his two Cup wins and missed the playoffs 3 times in 8 years. Hmmm... Looking back I see that Hart also only won one series outside of his two Cup wins as well.

Seems to me there are some folk around here that stress that short peaks equal bad selections. Hmmm...

LapierreSports

11-07-2007, 10:50 AM

I dont wanna see Maurice tonight, I wanna see the Rocket !!!

vancityluongo

11-07-2007, 03:40 PM

I dont wanna see Maurice tonight, I wanna see the Rocket !!!

I agree, LL should have taken Rocket as his coach last draft instead. ANYTHING but Maurice... ;)

Leaf Lander

11-07-2007, 06:08 PM

I agree, LL should have taken Rocket as his coach last draft instead. ANYTHING but Maurice... ;)

huh?

Leaf Lander

11-07-2007, 06:11 PM

The Dougie with Cow Legs ad was from the 1993-94 season. "Got Milk?" didn't start until at least 1996, and was a completely different format. it was mostly magazine ads with celebrities with a milk moustache..... so how is the gilmour ad part of that campaign?

ops i forgot it was gilmour for cows campaign:teach:

vancityluongo

11-07-2007, 06:46 PM

huh?

I dunno, for some reason, my first instinct when I read Maurice was Head of Coach of Toronto, and LL's previous ATD coach. So of course, I have to make a terrible attempt at a funny. :shakehead

arrbez

11-07-2007, 08:47 PM

I dunno, for some reason, my first instinct when I read Maurice was Head of Coach of Toronto, and LL's previous ATD coach. So of course, I have to make a terrible attempt at a funny. :shakehead

Don't be discouraged, I get jokes :handclap:

Leaf Lander

11-07-2007, 09:53 PM

Don't be discouraged, I get jokes :handclap:

I get funny jokes;)

Sturminator

11-08-2007, 12:56 AM

Seems to me there are some folk around here that stress that short peaks equal bad selections. Hmmm...

BM, this is a case in which Nalyd and I speak for ourselves. Actually, that has been the case throughout. Although we respect one another's opinions, we think quite independently. This fact has probably improved our collective ability to evaluate players and construct a team, but it makes our comments/criticisms of other GMs' squads seem rather disjointed, at times. It is appropriate that we've got Hart and Gorman coaching our team because we are sort of like them: two guys with quite different approaches working together towards a common goal. Hopefully our coaches can work together as well as I think we have.

Dick Irvin was on my shortlist for coaches to look at in the range where we took Cecil Hart. While I think Hart is surely the better fit for Oakland's style, I do not share my colleague's opinion of Dick Irvin. To be honest, I don't have a detailed enough picture of Irvin's coaching tenure to make a really complete judgment. We decided to go with Hart before I had time to complete my research on Irvin. I understand Nalyd's criticism of several coaches' playoff records (and I agree with his assessment of Punch Imlach - he needs the right kind of team - one that doesn't include Andy Bathgate, to begin with), but without more information, I certainly wouldn't say that I'd never draft Dick Irvin. In fact, I've got him in the top half of league coaches.

I'm the guy who stresses longevity and consistency, not Nalyd.

A note on Cecil Hart: both times he coached in Montreal, he completely turned around the franchise. The Habs went from bad to good. Comparing the performances of Hart's teams in the regular season to their performance in the playoffs ignores the fact that Cece was a huge part of the reason those teams were in the playoffs to begin with. Everyone knows the story of how, starting in 1926, Hart turned a cellar-dweller into a back-to-back champion within four seasons, but it should also be said that the Habs were in a similar state of disarray when Hart returned for his second (and much shorter because he got sick and died) tenure in 1936.

In fact, so great was the reverence for Cecil Hart in Montreal, that he returned to the Habs only after a lengthy press campaign to bring him back. And it was in his second tenure that Hart really distinguished himself as an innovator, bringing an old Howie Morenz back, acquiring Babe Siebert and moving him to defense and taking the team from worst to first in one season.

If Cecil Hart's playoff record doesn't look that shiny next to his regular-season record, that is only because his regular-season accomplishments are almost impossibly good. The guy was a fantastic tactical coach and twice a savior in Montreal. His accomplishments are limited only by the fact that he didn't coach for that long and spent half of his time fixing the mess that others had made of the Habs.

Nalyd Psycho

11-08-2007, 03:33 AM

I always forget Irvin was still coach with the 1953 Habs.

How Irvin did vs teams with better or worse records in the playoffs:

Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 17 - 5 - 12 - 80 - 33 - 46 - 1
Equal 1 - 0 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 3 - 0
Worse 28 - 21 - 7 - 106 - 66 - 39 - 1

Hmmm... lost 12 Finals, but only lost 7 series total to teams with inferior records, perhaps making the Finals wasn't too bad after all.

Cecil Hart
Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 4 - 2 - 2 - 14 - 7 - 6 - 1
Equal 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Worse 8 - 4 - 4 - 23 - 9 - 11 - 3

Irvin's teams lost after they hit the wall? They don't have a losing record to teams with inferior records.

Tommy Gorman
Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 5 - 3 - 2 - 14 - 7 - 5 - 2
Equal 1 - 1 - 0 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0
Worse 4 - 3 - 1 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 2

Hmmm... Doesn't look too bad, until you realize that he won only one series outside of his two Cup wins and missed the playoffs 3 times in 8 years. Hmmm... Looking back I see that Hart also only won one series outside of his two Cup wins as well.

Seems to me there are some folk around here that stress that short peaks equal bad selections. Hmmm...

I like how my criticizing your pick means my picks must be criticized. Would this conversation go differently if I had picked Toe Blake or Al Arbour? (Both were given very serious consideration.)

But, if you want to go that way. Hart vs Irvin: 1930=Hart over Irvin in a single elimination game. 1931=Hart over Irvin 3 games to 2. (Worth noting to back up my point about Irvin teams hitting a wall, they were up 2 games to 1 but lost the final 2 games to give Hart's Habs the win.) While Gorman vs Irvin, the only match-up is Gorman beating Irvin in a 3 game sweep in 1935 with a Maroons team that, on paper was weaker than the Leafs. So my coaches never lost a series to your coach.

Another flaw in your argument is that the coach is a big part of regular season standings. In Toronto Irvin had arguably 3 of the decade's top 5 forwards, the best trio of d-men and goalies like: Chabot, Hainsworth and Broda. Then in Montreal, again, 3 of the top 5 forwards, a brilliant 2nd line in Buddy O'Conner, the great trio of d-men in Bouchard, Reardon and Harmon and a dominant regular season goalie in Durnan. So the question is, with such an assortment of talent, why wasn't he winning more league championships?

In Toronto, people question the clutch play of The Kid Line. In Montreal people question Durnan. I'm questioning the common denominator. How is it that a coach that is 4-12 in the finals, who coached a who's who of talent from the era, not questioned for his inability to seal the deal? He was out done by Ivan, out done by Day, by Adams, Gorman, Hart. When push comes to shove and everything is on the line, Dick Irvin gets out coached.

I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't see how the numbers are deceiving me.

BM67

11-08-2007, 06:51 AM

A note on Cecil Hart: both times he coached in Montreal, he completely turned around the franchise. The Habs went from bad to good. Comparing the performances of Hart's teams in the regular season to their performance in the playoffs ignores the fact that Cece was a huge part of the reason those teams were in the playoffs to begin with. Everyone knows the story of how, starting in 1926, Hart turned a cellar-dweller into a back-to-back champion within four seasons, but it should also be said that the Habs were in a similar state of disarray when Hart returned for his second (and much shorter because he got sick and died) tenure in 1936.

In 26 he turned around a team that he coached to last place by adding Herb Gardiner and George Hainsworth from out west. That hardly speaks of great coaching, although it doesn't count it out of course.

BM67

11-08-2007, 08:03 AM

I like how my criticizing your pick means my picks must be criticized. Would this conversation go differently if I had picked Toe Blake or Al Arbour? (Both were given very serious consideration.)

You're the one that said I couldn't win with Irvin, but would be unbeatable with Gorman.

But, if you want to go that way. Hart vs Irvin: 1930=Hart over Irvin in a single elimination game. 1931=Hart over Irvin 3 games to 2. (Worth noting to back up my point about Irvin teams hitting a wall, they were up 2 games to 1 but lost the final 2 games to give Hart's Habs the win.) While Gorman vs Irvin, the only match-up is Gorman beating Irvin in a 3 game sweep in 1935 with a Maroons team that, on paper was weaker than the Leafs. So my coaches never lost a series to your coach.Irvin didn't coach Chicago in 1930, and they played a 2 game total goal series. In 31, Chicago's 2 wins came in OT, and the last 3 games of the series were in Montreal, so it's hardly an upset to lose the last 2 games.

While the Maroons might be weaker on paper in 35 that's not the same as being a weak team. The had 6 ATD #8 selections on the roster as well as Gorman.

Another flaw in your argument is that the coach is a big part of regular season standings. In Toronto Irvin had arguably 3 of the decade's top 5 forwards, the best trio of d-men and goalies like: Chabot, Hainsworth and Broda. Then in Montreal, again, 3 of the top 5 forwards, a brilliant 2nd line in Buddy O'Conner, the great trio of d-men in Bouchard, Reardon and Harmon and a dominant regular season goalie in Durnan. So the question is, with such an assortment of talent, why wasn't he winning more league championships?

In Toronto, people question the clutch play of The Kid Line. In Montreal people question Durnan. I'm questioning the common denominator. How is it that a coach that is 4-12 in the finals, who coached a who's who of talent from the era, not questioned for his inability to seal the deal? He was out done by Ivan, out done by Day, by Adams, Gorman, Hart. When push comes to shove and everything is on the line, Dick Irvin gets out coached.

I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't see how the numbers are deceiving me.Boston had a better record during the 31-40 period when Irvin coached in Toronto, and they also only won 1 Cup.

Year - Best record - Coach - Cup winner - Coach
31-32 - Canadiens - Hart - Toronto - Irvin
32-33 - Boston - Ross - Rangers - L. Patrick
33-34 - Toronto - Irvin - Chicago - Gorman
34-35 - Toronto - Irvin - Maroons - Gorman
35-36 - Detroit - Adams - Detroit - Adams
36-37 - Detroit - Adams - Detroit - Adams
37-38 - Boston - Ross - Chicago - Stewart
38-39 - Boston - Ross - Boston - Ross
39-40 - Boston - Ross - Rangers - F. Boucher

In 31-32 he won the Cup with Toronto.

In 32-33 he beat the top team in Boston, then lost the Final to the Rangers, a team with the same record, who had 8/1 drafted players/coach.

In 33-34 he lost with the #1 team to the #2 team, Detroit, in the semi-final. Detroit went on to lose to #3 Chicago in the Final. Detroit had 5/1 drafted players/coach, while Chicago had 6/1.

In 34-35 his #1 Leafs beat the #2 Bruins, before losing in the Final to the #4 Maroons, who had 6/1 drafted players coach.

In 35-36 his #3 Leafs beat #4 Boston and the #7 Americans bfore losing to the #1 Red Wings in the Final. Detroit had 8/1 drafted players/coach.

In 36-37 his #5 Leafs lost to the #6 Rangers (49 vs 47 pts), who then beat the #4 Maroons, before losing to the #1 Red Wings. The Rangers had 10/1 drafted players/coach and Detroit had 7/1.

In 37-38 his #3 Leafs beat #1 Boston before losing to #6 Chicago in the Finals. Chicago had only 3 drafted players, although two others have been drafted before.

In 38-39 his #3 Leafs beat the #4 Americans and the #5 Red Wings before losing to the #1 Bruins in the Finals. Boston had 11/1 drafted players.

In 39-40 his 3 Leafs beat #4 Chicago and #5 Detroit before losing to the #2 Rangers in the Finals. The Rangers had 9 drafted players.

While 1 Cup is a disappointment, it's more in contrast to his 6 Finals losses than a reasonable expectation of 2 or 3.

As for his years in Montreal, compare his roster to the dynasties in Toronto and Detroit.

He had some good goalies, but he also lost to some good goalies, including a few of the goalies he coached. Irvin got to the Finals 16 times with 7 different starting goalies.