View Single Post
09-09-2012, 09:11 PM
Registered User
Dreakmur's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,520
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
You focus only on scoring, ignoring the complete game that a good line requires. Vanek only brings scoring, Geoff Courtnall brings board work, toughness defense. Harris brings a complete game. Point is that a line has to be complete. No one criticizes the Cashman/ Esposito/Hodge line because Cashman did not rank highly in the league scoring. The Orfuns' first line is as complete as possible for this level.
Haynes and Ward bring all the intangibles needed for the line. Vanek plays the slot and scores the goal.

Barry Pederson's defensive attributes. He was regularly assigned the number one center with the Canucks - Hawerchuk, Savard, Gretzky, Peter Stastny etc and post Kasper injury Bruins:
In vancouver, he started with the match-ups, but he quickly lost that job to more capable players as he proved he couldn't do it. In boston, he immediately lost the job when the best option returned.

Even if your claims are true, which the statistical evidence doesn't fully suppoer, what does it actially prove? It proves that he was the best option, but once again we come back to context. Who were the other options on your team? How did you compare to the rest of the league?

Trust you can support similar defensive claims about your players with specifics as opposed to generalities.
I realize it might not be the most conventional place to put stuff like that, but I'd start by first looking in the profiles we linked to each player.

Donald Smith was Odie Cleghorn very light:

PCHA season he was at the Sibby Nichols level, above Ken Mallen. Neither was drafted in the MLD. Smith never played on a SC winner.
He moved around because his numbers were readily replaceable. Benefitted from playing with HHOFers - Rowe,Lalonde,Pitre, and others.Far from your claim of a key player.
Odie Cleghorn is a borderline 1st liner in the main draft, so it's hard to believe I need to defend that comparison.

His season in the PCHA was similar to Sibby Nichols, but Smith was able to play at that level for more than twice as long.

As for Bobby Rowe, I'm sure the one season he played with Smith had a huge impact on his career. With Lalonde, Smith did finish behind him in 1913, but then led the Habs in scoring the next season. He led his team in scoring half-a-dozen times over his career, so he definately was the key player that I am portraying him to be. Don't take my word though - there are some contemporary reports in his biography.

Your ageism is becoming a joke.
You can call it whatever you want, but a one-season wonder is what he is.

Start with goalies. The following dynasties were based on young goalies stepping up or replacing veterans. Sawchuk in Detroit, Plante in Montreal, Dryden in Montreal, Smith with the Islanders, Fuhr with the Oilers. The you have goalies that won young en route to great careers, Roy, Brodeur.
This has nothing to do with young and old. It has to do with Jonathan Quick having a 4 year career that contains 3 years of filler and only 1 year of something relevant to an all-time draft.

He's not young... he's just not very good in an all-time context.

Karlsson as #1 is well matched and surrounded by veterans. Similar to other great defensemen who impressed early Chelios had the same partner with the Canadiens.
Again, Karlsson isn't a "rookie" in this draft. He's just a guy who had a 3 year career that contains 1 great season, 1 ok season, and 1 bad season.

Great teams blend youth and longevity. 1958 - Canadiens after winning their third cup renewed the team. Dropping veterans like St. Laurent and Olmstead. Our team is very solid and well structured.
There are no "young players" in this draft - just players who haven't accomplished very much yet.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote