View Single Post
05-16-2011, 08:15 PM
Registered User
BraveCanadian's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,442
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I find the multiquote thing annoying, so I'm responding with bullet points.

•Yeah, Trottier can score goals. So can Henri Richard. It's not what either man is best at, though.
True, I do think Trottier is a little better than H. Richard in that respect though.

•Lol, the infamous seventieslord Maurice Richard rapsheet. Im surprised it didnt come up sooner. It might actually be relevant if you had an agitating fellow who could take him off his game, but of course you don't. I mean, Gillies is responsible defensively and all, but could he even catch The Rocket in the neutral zone?
I guess that depends on whether or not he was already waiting in the neutral zone for him or trying to catch him.

I think that is where the coaching comes in to maybe have him err on the side of caution considering who it is.. hahah

•Anyway, I think I did a fairly good job at insulating Maurice from foolishness. I honestly blame much of the Rocket's hyjinks on Dick Irvin, who loved smashmouth old school (even for his era) dirty hockey. His attitude with Maurice was basically "rile him up and let him go wild.". Once Toe Blake became coach, the Rocket really calmed it down. Pitner is a European coach who ran a disciplined system and Larry Robinson was a Bowman discipile like lemaire and was part of the NJ Devils when they were the most disciplined team in the league.
I think the Rocket also mellowed quite a bit as he got older, too.

He was still a loose canon for a number of years though.

I also gave the captaincy to Henri over Maurice because I wanted his more disciplined version of win-at-all-costs to be the model the team follows. Sure Maurice will take a dumb penalty here and there. Luckily for me, you didn't draft anyone annoying enough to actually make it an issue.
I think Henri is a great choice over Maurice as captain for exactly the reasons you specified. I would have done the same for sure.

•Starshinov was a Soviet All-Star (apparently at LW) in 1970 over Firsov and a young Kharlamov. I think he'll be just fine.
And only two years later he wasn't good enough to go best on best in the Summit Series, playing one ineffectual game.

So, maybe, maybe not. It isn't an easy thing to determine that is for sure.

•Your use of statistics in the Lewis / Ogrodnick comparison is horrendous. The talent pool of LWs in the NHL was at an all-time low in the 1980s (speculation - did rapid expansion result in many wings being converted to center?) and yet you're only comparing them to other LWs of their eras? Brutal. Lewis is in the Hall of Fame, albeit by the Veterans' Committee. Ogrodnick had one pretty good year, but overall was a significantly worse player than Shane Doan and Rene Robert.
It is no more horrendous than you using top 25 finishes to pimp up a guy from the 30s, really.

You're the one who brought up the point per game thing, you just chose a absurdly low minimum of 200 games over 13 seasons (20% of the games).

As soon as you bump it to even 50% of the games Ogrodnick is top 5 in PPG at LW over an equal 10 year span from his start.

I didn't even know that Ogrodnick would end up rating higher over his peers over his career than Lewis in PPG until after you brought it up.

Secondly, while I agree that often LW is one of the weaker positions offensively, if we start into the "Era" thing, we just end up with newer players are by and large much better than older ones.

That is why we compare them to their peers in the first place.

I'm not saying Ogrodnick belongs in the Hall (veterans committee or no) or even that he is better than Lewis. Just that he is a productive offensive left winger.

(As an aside, Goulet *is* in the Hall and Propp is criminally underrated and should be)

•If MacLeish and Robert are "decent" playmakers at this level, then who isn't? I mean, they're no Bondra or anything, but... I really wouldn't want either of them to set up a pure shooter at this level. I mean, if Ogrodnick was anything close to balanced, it would work. But he isn't.
If we stick to the ATD cookie cutter then you may be right. At this point I almost consider my second line the little engine that could for coming through two rounds of constant abuse.

•if Dan Boyle was my #6, I'd have the deepest defense in the draft probably. Heh. Luckily for everyone else, he's my #5 on paper but probably #4 in skill. He'll often play more minutes than Bilyaletdinov, especially if trailing.
That is kind of what I mean. Boyle is probably more purely skilled than some guys playing in positions ahead of him on both teams because different roles need different skillsets.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote