View Single Post
03-28-2013, 04:47 PM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Cincinatti Review

Here goes

Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Cincinnati Fireworks

GM: Markrander87
Coach: Mike Kennan
Captain: Ted Kennedy
Alternate Captains: Mike Grant, Eddie Gerard, Charlie Conacher

Ted Lindsay - Ted Kennedy (C) - Bobby Rousseau
Harry Watson - Denis Savard - Charlie Conacher (A)
Patrick Marleau - Henrik Sedin - Wilf Paiement
Sami Pahlsson - Steve Kasper - Cully Wilson (defensive zone draw line when 1st line needs rest)

Eddie Gerard (A) - Ken Reardon
Gennady Tsygankov - Mike Grant (A)
Bill Hajt - Lennart Svedberg

George Hainsworth
Rogie Vachon

Spares: LW/C Lynn Patrick, D Jack "Tex" Evans, LW Dennis Hextall, F Patrick Sharp

PP 1:

Lindsay – Savard – Conacher
Svedberg – Rousseau

PP 2:

Sedin - Kennedy - Marleau
Gerard - Grant

PK 1:

Kasper - Rousseau
Hajt - Gerard

PK 2:

Kennedy - Pahlsson
Reardon- Tysgankov
Coaching and Leadership

Mike Keenan is definitely a good coach here if you build the right kind of team. Any players with delicate feelings would not handle Keenan well at all - the man believed in motivating players by making them hate the coach. IMO, despite what a laughing stock he became towards the end of his career, he should be in the HHOF for his contributions to the modern short shift game. Mike Keenan liked aggressive character players and didn't mind his players taking penalties, so he'll love guys like Lindsay, Kennedy, and Reardon. Softies like Rousseau and Sedin could end up in Keenan's doghouse though.

Lots of leadership on your roster - Kennedy and Gerard both captained dynasties, and Lindsay captained the second half of the Wings dynasty after Abel was traded. All three of them ooze leadership - I guess you didn't give Lindsay a letter because you wanted to spread them around the line up more? I'd still probably do it. Mike Grant is fine as an A. Not sure if Charlie Conacher brings much leadership, but you don't really need it.


An unconventional setup, so hard to review, but I'll try.

First off - I'll get this out of the way - if you want to use the first line as a checking line, you really should do more original research on Ted Kennedy. I highly suspect that Kennedy was the top defensive center of the 1940s dynasty, and if so, he's obviously a good choice to check opposing top centers here. But more research would really be helpful there. Kennedy was a slow skater though, so he might still have a little trouble defending fast centers in open ice. But we do know he was gritty and that his faceoff prowess is legendary, so he should be fairly strong at checking in his own zone. It's very possible that Kennedy is more than "fairly strong" defensively in his own zone, this is where more research would help.

Ted Lindsay played the majority of his prime with Gordie Howe on the other wing, and he doesn't really have anyone like Howe here. Lindsay/Howe absolutely overwhelmed opponents with their speed and aggression. Lindsay's speed really is underrated in the ATD. If there's a downside to your top line offensively, it's that Lindsay doesn't really have a linemate to take full advantage of the speed part of his game - Kennedy was slow, and Rousseau's offense isn't scaring anyone. And like I said elsewhere, while Kennedy was absolutely a conscientious back checker, I don't think he was good enough to be a shut down guy. On the other hand, he's going to be better both offensively and defensively than the majority of scoring line RWs he faces, so it could work in a strength-vs-strength way. '

Rousseau is a guy who we've apparently been underrating defensively in the ATD - he was a strong two-way player and back checker, though he was notably soft. I have mixed feelings about him here. His defensive ability will definitely help if you want to use this as a checking line, but like I said in my review of Lindsay - Ted Lindsay seems more of a "win a strength vs strength battle" type of guy than a checker. Rousseau's softness won't hurt you much next to guys like Lindsay and Kennedy, but I don't think I'd want him checking a left wing who was known to be physically aggressive (good thing Ted Lindsay is his teammate, right?). Offensively, Rousseau is obviously sub par for a first line, but he does bring defense and is a good enough playmaker to get the puck to his more talented linemates.

Second line is obviously more talented than most second lines. Denis Savard is a more well-rounded offensive player than Joe Primeau, but he'll still be able to get the puck to Charlie Conacher, who is a beast of a man. I would have loved to see Conacher on the same line as Lindsay - Conacher absolutely could take on the heavyweight fighters Lindsay couldn't, but I don't know if you have the right centers for that to happen. Harry Watson is a solid enough second line glue guy who brings a lot of toughness and some defense.

I'm curious if you've considered a Lindsay - Savard - Conacher, Watson - Kennedy - Rousseau set up? That first line isn't that great defensively, but that would be the job of the 2nd and 4th lines.

Third line is definitely unconventional with Henrik Sedin there. Paiement is the tough guy and Marleau is solid defensively. Paiement is the only traditional bottom 6er on the line, and he's a good one, Sturminator made a good point last draft that we were previously underrating Paeiment's offense due to a lack of top 10s. If you had a less demanding coach, I'd suggest scratching Marleau and replacing him with Lynn Patrick, who I think is a much better offensive player and more capable of taking advantage of Sedin's playmaking. But Lynn "twinkletoes" Patrick and Henrik Sedin on one line is probably more softness than Keenan is willing to tolerate.

4th line is one of those defensively specialized lines that I wouldn't give a lot of ice time to, but they can take defensive zone draws and do some checking when the Kennedy line is unavailable.

You have a good mix of spares.


You waited longer than most to draft your defesemen, but you managed to pull off some shrewd trades to keep them from being a big liability.

Eddie Gerard is a weak #1, but he can pass for one, and I was seriously considering drafting him to anchor my second pairing before you trading up for him. Very good move to trade up for him as he's probably the last defenseman drafted who can even pass for a #1. Ken Reardon is a solid, though injury prone #2. This pairing won't create that much offense, but they'll be fine in transition, and they are very good defensively, with Gerard's smarts complimenting Reardon's aggression.

I think Mike Grant is probably a good #3, but wish you had made some kind of profile on him - he's still very much a mystery man. I think Tsygankov would probably be best as a #5 - he really did struggle in the Summit Series, but maybe I'm looking too much into an 8 game sample.

I think much more highly of Svedberg than Dreakmur does, and I agree that he's a fine #4 who leans more towards offense. Hajt is something of a penalty killing specialist, which means he's below par at even strength, but probably not enough to hurt you.

Jack Evans might be a better defenseman than Hajt - either way - he could easily play a regular shift, which is good, since Reardon will spend some time on the IR.


I see Hainsworth as below average, but not bottom of the barrel. Somewhere between 20-25 all time. He's no Martin Brodeur or Bill Durnan, but there was definitely a lively Lehman vs Hainsworth debate during the history board's goalies project.

Vachon is one of the best backups.

Special teams

First PP seems pretty average with Lindsay and Conacher as strengths, but the point men below average. Don't get me wrong - you absolutely did the right thing in trading up to get Svedberg for your PP, but he's far from elite as a PP QB at this level.

Second PP is pretty good, but with all the forward talent you have, you couldn't get someone better than Marleau there?

PK defensemen are good, you have a lot of forwards who can PK, but none of them scream particularly elite at it.


I think the fate of this team could very well be determined by what you can dig up about Ted Kennedy and Mike Grant. You need to establish that Kennedy was, in fact, the top defensive center of a dynasty for your top line to be really credible as top matchup line. And Mike Grant really needs to be established as a strong #3 for the second pairing to be anything but below average.

That said, you have a ton of forward talent that very well could overwhelm teams with weaker lower pairings regardless of what you find out about those guys. And you're a team loaded with leadership and guys known for making their teammates want to play better.

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-28-2013 at 05:20 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote