HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD#8 Jim Robson Round #1: #3 Sherbrooke vs. #6 Seattle

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-24-2007, 12:24 AM
  #26
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Oh... Maybe Howe had a great sense of anticipation, but Pulford was a step ahead of him in this department, especially when facing Howe.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2007, 12:28 AM
  #27
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Another thing....

Quote:
The star of the western side failed to make much of an impression the rest of that evening.
THAT WAS ONE FRIGGIN' EVENING.

And not only there is no Broadbent (there is Howe, but he WON'T play often against Keats, so forget about it -- anyways, if you send him hunting for Keats, he will definitely not be forechecking --) in your team, but I don't see any Nighbour either...

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2007, 02:06 AM
  #28
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Man, this is a good one. Strong points made on both sides. A few comments:

- I don't think Marty Barry is an injury concern, even given potential dirty play by Les Castors. Barry was extremely durable during his career facing top checkers in "the dirty thirties", and has a decade-long ironman streak to show for it.

- I said it before: both first lines are going to terrorize their opponent's defenses. Conacher (who was big, strong and fast, though not particularly aggressive) - Ullman - Howe is on the extreme high-end (like #1 overall) of forechecking lines and will give Sherbrooke's defenders (whichever ones are used) fits. Quack is neutral in terms of physicality (not soft, IMO) and Vasko's a great athlete, but is on the low-end for a first pairing player in terms of skill (he wasn't known as a great passer, and passing quickly and efficiently is very important when trying to beat an aggressive forecheck). Sherbrooke's top pairing shouldn't be expected to have physical problems with most lines, but Conacher - Ullman - Howe is not most lines.

- on the other hand, Rob Blake is going to be seeing Moore - Richard - Richard in his nightmares. Babe Seibert is solid, but he's a good 2-way guy who I wouldn't consider a shutdown player in his own end. At any rate, Siebert is not the perfect cover for Blake's mistakes, especially considering that Babe, himself, likes to move up ice a bit with the puck. The speed, skill and defensive awareness of Sherbrooke's top line is going to create alot of odd-man situations in Seattle's zone, and both Moore and especially the Rocket are fantastic finishers. Ken Dryden is an excellent goalie, but Moore - Richard - Richard could probably put a few past Jesus if the messiah's team had Rob Blake playing #1 minutes.

- again, I think Dave Keon is the key to this series. Both third lines are very good checking units, but Keon gives Sherbrooke the 3rd line matchup edge going both ways, in my opinion. Les Castors' third line will not only check more effectively (not a huge difference, but it's there), but with his speed, skill and determination (did I mention I really like Dave Keon?), Keon will present a threat to counterattack every time he touches the puck. Vasko won't help much in getting the puck to Keon, but if Quack gets half a second in the defensive zone, he should be able to whip a pass up ice. I don't think Quack will have a lot of time against that line, but he and Keon should be able to hook up at least occasionally.

- Keon is the counterbalance to Seattle's edge in goal. If Dave can slow the Howe line down (not shut them down, but slow them down) and score a few on the counterattack, Sherbrooke will win. If Keon doesn't have a good series, I think this one goes to Seattle. Considering Keon's reputation as a clutch performer, I like Sherbrooke in seven.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2007, 03:03 AM
  #29
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
If Howe can feast up on Quackenbush, Richard and Moore will feast up on, ingest, digest and puke on Rob Blake, so much he might look like Bryan McCabe in end with his supberb passing skills and on-ice agility.
you are right about that, and so we will keep blake as far from your 1st line as possible. on the road he will be on the ice mostly with either our 1st line, or with our 3rd. we may even have to pair him with white or schoenfeld on the road.
we may lose some offensive ability, but hod stuart might be better offensively anyway.

keep in mind, though, that quackenbush is probably your best d-man defensively, while blake is not our best defensively. white, siebert, stuart and schoenfeld were all very good defensively.
of course, they will also struggle to contain your top line, but not more than your D corps will struggle to contain ours.

the biggest difference is that our D have a much bigger margin for error because our goalie is much better.

Quote:
Quack wouldn't have been a 5-time All-Star Team (3 1st,2 second) if wouldn't have been able to stand forecheck for whoever it may be. And he was able to record this feat in MUCH LESS years than it took Howe to earn 6 Rosses. And don't make Noisy better than he is... Noisy will indeed often forecheck for the sole reason he won't win many faceoffs in this round. And heavy forechecking (with two players) means leaving either Moore and Richard or Barber and Anderson (which is not exactly good in playoffs) or Keon and ... let's say Ellis (for christ sakes, we're talking about the best backhander of hockey's history) on odd-man rushes. I'll say it again : my F's will never be very far from the D-Mens with my team. And everybody can pass on my team.
quackenbush is probably the best d-man in the series, but he's going up against arguably the best forward in history. any way you look at it it's a big mismatch.

howe's 1st 5 art rosses came in a span of 7 seasons, and his 1st 4 were consecutive ('51-'54). that he won another art ross in his mid 30s only shows how great he was.
by age 26, howe had already won more art rosses than all the players on your team combined.

of howe's teamates, only 2 ever got more hart votes in any season than he did after he reached his prime. red kelly was 1, ullman was the other.

if your forwards are not far from your D, it will be much harder to get odd man rushes.

Quote:
This said... WHO will take care of Keats? He won't play against your before you are on your home ice, and it's not because something happens once that it happens everytime. Keats was also extremely scrappy, you know...

This said, you haven't adressed depth problem, and Bob Froese is already starting to write memoes that the T-Birds only have 4 centers.
we aren't going to match lines with keats. someone is sure to knock him around whenever the chance presents itself.

foyston played all forward positions, plus rover. if he needs to, he can play C.

i agree that we don't have good scoring depth. our offense rests on our top 6, and howe especially.

Quote:
Hockey isn't a thing of one player beats your player. Gordie Howe was maybe the best RW (and even then, it's extremely discutable considering how much longevity weights in his case when compared with Richard, and frankly, I'd take Richard ahead of Howe for the playoffs.).
howe is still 1 of the 3 or 4 most dominant players in history. if he isn't stopped, he can win a series almost by himself.
i don't even think it's debatable that howe was better than rocket. howe won 6 harts richard won 1. howe won 6 art rosses, richard won 0.
by all accounts, howe was a better defensive player. they both led the NHL in goals 5 times, but howe also led in assists 3 times.
richard never dominated offensively like howe did in the early '50s.
richard also averaged more penalties than howe.

even in the playoffs i would rather have howe. richard was maybe the most clutch player ever, and his goal scoring increased in the playoffs, but his total points decreased. richard may have raised his game more, but howe was at a higher level.
howe led the playoffs in scoring 6 times, richard twice.

Quote:
My gameplan is to use all my team. Howe will not cause Quack to cause that much mistakes to turn the tide of the round himself, and you send too much mens to forecheck, well, that will means LOTS of odd-man rushes against you. If (and this is IF) Howe takes control of the puck after he takes control of the puck, he will have either Barber (who can certainly slow him enough to break any momentum or goal scoring opportunity), or Pulford (Howe's nightmare) on his back.
it's not just howe on the forecheck. ullman often played against vasko's blackhawks, and during his prime, he abused them. emile francis said ullman was the best forechecker in the NHL.
yesterday or today, in a thread about teams that were great in the regular season but not the playoffs, pappyline posted that the '64 blackhawks had the best record, 5 1st AS's, the norris winner, the top 2 scorers and 1 player on the 2nd AS team; but they lost in the 1st round.
detroit was the team that beat them. howe and ullman were 1st and 2nd in playoff scoring. ullman had 2 hat tricks, a 5 point game and 13 points in 7 games against vasko and chicago, with glenn hall in net. ullman's forechecking was crucial to that.

if your forwards play deep in your end, then 1stly, odd man rushes are much less likely; 2ndly, our D will then be open.

i would say pulford was more a headache or thorn in howe's side than a nightmare.
many teams struggled against pulford's toronto team, but that was a very different type of team from yours. it was a tight checking, defensive, more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts kind of team. it had great goaltending and a great group of D.

your great 2 way forwards don't make your D or goaltending any better.

Quote:
If we ever go one-on-one, it's Dickie Moore that Howe's gonna face. And Dickie, well... was powerful enough toss Jean Béliveau on a regular basis when they played each other in the Quebec Senior Hockey League. And there was quite a size difference between Beliveau and Howe. Howe was maybe meaner than Béliveau, but that wasn't the kind of things that really meant anything for Dickie. So there is 3 guys amongst my LW's (you can even add Bridgman, who doesn't have the skills of my other guys, but could definitely play a good defensive game, and would probably opt for the frontal crosscheck whenever he misses his checking on Howe -- really not making this up here).
we would prefer head to head to your 3rd on our 1st, and while moore was a great player, (could be argued as better than mahovlich, imo.) i don't think he has the ability to stop howe. of course, conacher would never stop richard either.


Quote:
Howe won't be as efficient if you use him 28 minutes. Quackenbush was a NOTORIOUS time-logger, as well as Richard, but it would be ultimately pointless to have any of my 1st liners on the ice for more than 22 mins (it obviously an approximation), as players needs some icetime to get it : not only this tires more Howe and the remainder of the 1st line, but it makes all your other players much less effective in the end. Howe was definitely tough, but there's no way he'll be able to stand being on the ice against my four LW's, and the "tough" part of my defense (Phil Russell in particular). If it would work like this, everybody would be looking to trade up in order to have a...

Lindsay - Gretzky - Howe
Orr - Shore

1st line. And would say they would ice them 30 minutes a game (SOMEWHAT makes sense for the D's), or 40 for that matter.

Howe was good, but don't make him the sum of Lemieux, Gretz, Orr and Link Gaetz.
trading up results in loss of depth. we traded up for dryden, and we have a below average group of d-men as a result.

howe often played over 30 minutes. gretzky often played over 25. when fedorov won the hart, he was playing 27-28 minutes.
even today, there are a few forwards getting 24 minutes.
howe had legendary stamina. we won't claim he can play 40+ as he apparently used to, because probably a good chunk of that time was sort of floating, reading the play, and jumping into the action. 28 is not out of the question. remember several of those minutes will be PP.

howe wasn't the sum of 99, 66, 4 and gaetz, but he was the closest thing in history to a mixture of them. that's why he's called mr. hockey.

i'm thinking TOI will look like:
howe around 28
white, stuart, siebert, blake and ullman around 21-22
schoenfeld, conacher, barry, foyston, westfall and kasper around 17
neilson, leswick and northcott around 12-14
the others around 10 or less.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2007, 03:49 AM
  #30
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
i have already responsed to the criticism that our top line lacks the ideal level of playmaking, by showing that ullman has almost exactly the same career goals to assist ratio (.67) as sid abel, who is considered a playmaking C.

in case that wasn't evidence enough, here's more:

ullman: 739 assists in 1410 games ~.524
delvecchio: 825 assists in 1550 games ~.532

ullman and delvecchio both have 9 seasons of 40 assists and 2 seasons of 50.

even in the season ullman led the NHL in goals, he finished 5th in assists, 1 behind delvecchio.

delvecchio was a great playmaker, but ullman was a goalscoring gunner?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
- on the other hand, Rob Blake is going to be seeing Moore - Richard - Richard in his nightmares. Babe Seibert is solid, but he's a good 2-way guy who I wouldn't consider a shutdown player in his own end. At any rate, Siebert is not the perfect cover for Blake's mistakes, especially considering that Babe, himself, likes to move up ice a bit with the puck. The speed, skill and defensive awareness of Sherbrooke's top line is going to create alot of odd-man situations in Seattle's zone, and both Moore and especially the Rocket are fantastic finishers. Ken Dryden is an excellent goalie, but Moore - Richard - Richard could probably put a few past Jesus if the messiah's team had Rob Blake playing #1 minutes.
i don't think blake is as much a liability as you, not any more than any of sherbrooke's 2-6 d-men, but we will try to keep him away from sherbrooke's top line.


Quote:
- Keon is the counterbalance to Seattle's edge in goal. If Dave can slow the Howe line down (not shut them down, but slow them down) and score a few on the counterattack, Sherbrooke will win. If Keon doesn't have a good series, I think this one goes to Seattle. Considering Keon's reputation as a clutch performer, I like Sherbrooke in seven.
keon is not the counterbalance to our huge edge in net, just as carbonneau and dallas' great 2 way forwards don't make up for the weakness of the D corps.
my problem with this idea is that keon's line isn't playing by itself against howe's line. it's playing with a weak group of D and a weak goalie.
all the efforts of a great checking line are futile if the D and goalie, the main defensive players, are not up to the task.

it seems to me that the vast majority of great defensive forwards played for teams with very solid to excellent D.

i'm struggling to come up with the name of any defensive forward who made his name playing for a team with weak D and goaltending....


Last edited by nik jr: 11-24-2007 at 05:39 AM.
nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 01:02 PM
  #31
Transplanted Caper
Registered User
 
Transplanted Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Internet Underbelly
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,682
vCash: 500
FYI: I'm about halfway done writing this one up. I'm at the office now and will be posting the full results later this evening

Transplanted Caper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 08:03 PM
  #32
Transplanted Caper
Registered User
 
Transplanted Caper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Internet Underbelly
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,682
vCash: 500
ATD: First Round Match-up

Castors de Sherbrooke #3 versus Seattle Thunderbirds #6


Game One:
The ‘Rocket’ would do the hometown crowd proud in Game One and dominated from start to finish. After scoring early on, Richard would take the intensity up another notch and was hitting anything in sight, leading to a turnover late in the 1st which led to a Bill Quackenbush goal to put the Castors up 2-0. Gordie Howe was seen yelling at his team from the bench and this seemed to spark the Thunderbirds who would get to within one late in the 2nd on a goal by Norm Ulmann. Despite this lift, Richard was not to be deterred and would score early in the 3rd period for the hattrick. This goal seemed to deflate the Thunderbirds who looked listless the rest of the way, allowing a late goal by Dave Keon to make it 4-1 Sherbrooke.

Final: 4-1 Sherbrooke.

Game 2
After watching his team lay a stinker in Game One, Gordie Howe wasn’t going to let the same thing happen twice. He came out like a man possessed and potted a big goal on the powerplay early one to give the Thunderbirds a 1-0 lead. Marty Berry would continue his solid series soon after scoring on a rebound to put Seattle up 2-0. Ken Dryden would stand on his head for almost the rest of the game as the Castors took a time-out following the Berry goal. However, Dryden would finally be beaten when Richard spotted an open Sergei Zubov at the point and put a pass on the tape allowing the Russian to fire one past Dryden to cut the lead in half. However, that would be all that would get by Dryden the rest of the way and Howe would score again late to give the win to Seattle.

Final: 3-1 Seattle

Game 3
The series returned to the West Coast and once again it was Mr. Hockey who made sure not to disappoint the hometown fans and set Roy Conacher up for the opening goal at the midway point of the 1st period. Things looked bad for the Castors as they took a penalty soon after but would respond with a solid PK and as the penalty ended Dave Keon hit Glenn Anderson with a pass as he jumped out the box and put one five hole on Dryden. The next time out the Seattle PP wouldn’t be stopped as Blake hammered in from the point to put the Thunderbirds up 1 heading into the final frame. The 3rd was all Seattle as they took advantage of hometown enthusiasm and peppered Alex Connell with a flurry of shots. The netminder was able to turn back almost all of them until Howe tipped one in on a point shot giving the Thunderbirds their second straight win

Final: 3-1 Seattle



Game 4:
The Thunderbird fans were barely in their seat when they were roused back up when Gordie Howe put the team up 1-0 less than a minute into the 1st period. Things got better from their for the home side as less than 3 minutes after that Steve Kaspar put the homeside up by two. Watching the game slip from his grasp so early, Jacques Demers called a timeout to rally the troops and got the message across as Henri Richard would score via a pass from his brother late in the 1st to cut the lead in half. Despite dominating the rest of the way, the Castors were unable to get anything else by Ken Dryden who stood on his head. The Castors left the rink dejected and frustrated, none moreso than Rocket Richard, whose 6 points in 4 games did nothing to stop his team from being down three games to one going home.

Final: 2-1 Seattle

Game 5

The Sherbrooke fans were in a frenzy as Game 5 got underway, from the first shift it was obvious it was going to be the Rocket’s night. Three minutes into the game, he stole the puck from Rob Blake and snapped one past Dryden to put the home team up 1-0. As his teammates tried to mob him, Richard shook them off, skated back to the bench and glared intensely at the ice. It wouldn’t be long before he would strike again, potting a pass from Quackenbush and putting it over Dryden’s glove. 2-0 Castors, but again, no smile on the face of Richard. As the 2nd got underway Howe would take a slashing penalty putting his team down a man, as the puck circled in behind the Seattle net, Jim Schonfeld would go searching for it and would be met with Richard’s elbow. Luckily for the Castors, the referees would miss the call and the Rocket would find Dickie Moore in front of the net for the 3-0 lead. Sherbrooke would put on the brakes and kept things tight the rest of the way and Richard would notch his second hattrick of the series late in the 3rd to complete the shutout for Sherbrooke at home


Final: 4-0 Sherbrooke

Game 6
The series returned to the left coast for the sixth game where both goalies were determined not to lose the game for their team. Dryden would rob Henri Richard on a 2-on-1 midway through the first, and Alex Connel continued his flawless play from the last game matching his counterpart save for save in the first two frames. Five minutes into the 3rd period all hell broke loose in the arena when Frank Foyston tipped in a Blake point shot to give the Thunderbirds a 1-0 lead. Knowing it was do or die, the Castors turned it up more than a notch and dominated play the rest of the way. Despite getting a 5-on-3 the Castors went into the final minute of the game with nothing to show for their efforts. Bill Barber was robbed on a wrap around at the midway point, Dave Keon had a tip in just dribble wide and Glenn Anderson managed to hit two posts in one shift. With eleven seconds remaining, a clearing attempt to a funny hop off the stick of Albert Siebert and right onto the stick of Maurice Richard who fired the puck past Dryden sending the game into overtime. After tying the game so late Richard came out firing in overtime and wound up hitting the crossbar on his first shift of the extra frame. The Thunderbirds would get a great chance of their own and would be stopped by the glove of Connell. It would be a shot from the point that would ultimately be the deciding factor in this game, a Blake shot would kareem of a stick halfway to the goal and deflect into the face of Richard right above the eye. Despite his protests he was brought off the ice to get stitched up, and could only watch, blood dripping from his forehead as his rival Gordie Howe would notch the winner only a minute later sending Seattle off to the 2nd Round.

Final: 2-1 Seattle

Seattle wins series 4 games to 2.

Three Stars

1. Maurice Richard
2. Gordie Howe
3. Ken Dryden

Transplanted Caper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 08:11 PM
  #33
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,947
vCash: 500
Perhaps the strongest #6 seed ever advances.

The league's biggest upset officially, and the first series to be announced.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 08:12 PM
  #34
The_Hockey_Guy18
 
The_Hockey_Guy18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 455
vCash: 500
Wow, tough way to lose for Sherbrooke, losing the Rocket in overtime like that. A well deserved first star in a losing effort.

Congrats to Seattle on the upset victory.

The_Hockey_Guy18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 08:20 PM
  #35
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Well, congrats Nik. What I said in the main ATD board stands.

This said, what I said about rhetorics in the TOR vs. NJ matchup stands even more.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 08:34 PM
  #36
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,345
vCash: 500
Congrats on the win, Seattle. This team should never have finished 6th, even in the toughest division in the draft. Your team has so many personal favorites of mine, you'd think that I drafted it!

It was a bad matchup for a good Sherbrooke team. Seattle was able to match up with most of les Castors' competitive advantages (top line, checking line, skilled D). I think Sherbrooke might have been somewhat overrated as a regular season team and somewhat underrated as a playoff team.

Nik Jr, tell Gordie that Denis says hi. They will be getting to know each other pretty soon.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 08:35 PM
  #37
shawnmullin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Swift Current
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,172
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to shawnmullin Send a message via MSN to shawnmullin
Well that's always tough to lose when you're the favourite, but match ups can get the best of you sometimes.

I've always said that when it came to one on one people here tend to point to the goalie advantage a little too much. I agree with GBC who states the difference between the top 20 goalies is fairly minimal. However, MXD did have one of the worst starters in the league.

shawnmullin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 08:52 PM
  #38
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Congrats on the win, Seattle. This team should never have finished 6th, even in the toughest division in the draft. Your team has so many personal favorites of mine, you'd think that I drafted it!

It was a bad matchup for a good Sherbrooke team. Seattle was able to match up with most of les Castors' competitive advantages (top line, checking line, skilled D). I think Sherbrooke might have been somewhat overrated as a regular season team and somewhat underrated as a playoff team.

Nik Jr, tell Gordie that Denis says hi. They will be getting to know each other pretty soon.
Somewhat?!?! There were 7 CS on this squad! + Anderson + Zubov! AFAIK, I could have been the only GM able to build a Selke Smythe line (Pulford - Keon - Watson), and that was coming against GBC. It just wasn't the best idea against Seattle. Or maybe it would have, as voters never took into account the fact that my 4th line would definitely have scored in this round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnmullin View Post
Well that's always tough to lose when you're the favourite, but match ups can get the best of you sometimes.

I've always said that when it came to one on one people here tend to point to the goalie advantage a little too much. I agree with GBC who states the difference between the top 20 goalies is fairly minimal. However, MXD did have one of the worst starters in the league.
I think the weakness of my D have been wayy overstated. First, it was built on an absolute false premise that Quackenbush was too small to play regular minutes, then Zubov became a bad D-Men defensively, then my bottom pairing completely thrown out of the analysis because they weren't good enough (what is good, exactly?) while there was probably 2 or 3 hardest-hittings pairings in the whole draft, then Abel not considerered 2nd pairing worthy even though he had one of the best playoffs performances ever...

Then, Connell. There are 28 1st goalies. One has to be 28th, and while I don't think it's Connell, he's not very far from that mark. But Connell has one CS, won two cups, and was really good at elevating his game when it was needed. He's no Dryden, but hey, nobody ever thought Grant Fuhr was the best goalie in the NHL (at least, I hope so), only the guy was able to win. I've had the exact opposite approach last draft, and I got screwed on the same basis.

Then, Demers. I prefered to have a guy whom I know how teams he coached looked like than a guy I could boast about because "he won many cups", while he was, quite simply, a despicable human being.

Again, I just thought these things were really obvious. It seems they weren't, however. I'll write longer analysis next time.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 09:05 PM
  #39
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,642
vCash: 500
I felt this series was the toughest one to pick a winner. I thought Seattle deserved to finish higher in the regular season, but having them finish so low left a tough matchup for Sherbrooke. It's unfortunate that one team had to lose.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 09:21 PM
  #40
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
I felt this series was the toughest one to pick a winner. I thought Seattle deserved to finish higher in the regular season, but having them finish so low left a tough matchup for Sherbrooke. It's unfortunate that one team had to lose.
The only problem I had is that the analysis started on an absolutely false premise, and it continued on it until the end of the voting process.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 09:35 PM
  #41
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Well, congrats Nik. What I said in the main ATD board stands.

This said, what I said about rhetorics in the TOR vs. NJ matchup stands even more.
wow, didn't expect to win, and even less so in 6.

great series MXD. our debate on our teams was really fun. i hope i wasn't too harsh in my criticisms. i thought the debate was our best chance to convince the voters.
it's too bad someone had to lose. i think our division was very close.


now we have to play the habs.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 09:42 PM
  #42
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
wow, didn't expect to win, and even less so in 6.

great series MXD. our debate on our teams was really fun. i hope i wasn't too harsh in my criticisms. i thought the debate was our best chance to convince the voters.
it's too bad someone had to lose. i think our division was very close.


now we have to play the habs.
It's not the debate itself... Except the fact that you started this thread with VERY false premise, and added up with more false premises after the first one, so some people might have made their own idea ; on the rhetorics part, just refers to what I said in the TOR - NJ thread. Let's just say that if French would have been the mandatory language on this board, I would probably have won this round. I also suspect some voters are completely clueless about Phil Watson, but that's a story for another time.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 09:46 PM
  #43
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
what false premises? if you think my arguments are wrong, you must refute them.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 09:51 PM
  #44
Diving Pokecheck*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 1,474
vCash: 500
Glorious victory! MXD, I honestly thought that we were going down. Good job. As for your 'false premises' argument, the proof is in the pudding.

Diving Pokecheck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 10:33 PM
  #45
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
what false premises? if you think my arguments are wrong, you must refute them.
Well, I think that at this point, arguments shouldn't be wrong when looked at it objectively. Starting the analysis with Bill Quackenbush being a small D-Men really made me scream. I would have deleted this post if I would have been you. (As I did with my reviews when Sturminator complained about Harry Cameron being labelled a drunk, and while I don't remember using those exact words, it was probably much more "black or white" than what I meant. Not wanting to lead anybody in wrong directions made me delete all the reviews, except on LL's team, as I thought it was a team that might not get the respect it deserved (which happened...), and I had drawn a rather positive global portrait of that team... My rather short fuse in the morning was also a bit to blame when I erased the reviews, though, and went a little ballistic on Sturm thereafter, but it quickly settled down).

This said, not much is gonna made me change my mind : that round was way too much won on rhetorics, even if your team was probably the worse match I could have to start the draft. In fact, I'm officially on hiatus for next draft - hockey shouldn't be about rhetorics, and it exactly what happened in this draft, the last MLD (even though I was beaten by a team much more upset-likely than yours), and even the last ATD where I was matched-up against the worst (or the best, depending on the point of view) GM when it comes to rhetorics (Mind you, something I noticed again in this draft...) I'll (probably) consult a new GM for the uncoming MLD. I just disliked what happened this time. Sorry to be so crude about it, I just cannot explain this in any other way.

Honestly, it pains me a little to say all this, because you have a great team that should never, never have finished 6th in our division (or in any division for that matter). You might have won the round anyway otherwise, and there would have been nothing I could have said about that. But considering what happened, I can't help but think of your victory as slightly... tainted.


Last edited by MXD: 11-26-2007 at 10:45 PM.
MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2007, 11:08 PM
  #46
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
Congrats to nik jr and Agent Dale Cooper on pulling off a moderate upset. And your reward: a series with former champion Hockey Outsider and his perennially strong Montreal Canadiens.

I thought that MXD's first line, third line and blend on defence would be enough to get him the duke. I think guys saw the edge that Seattle had in goal, and the (big) edge behind the bench, and that was the difference.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2007, 01:31 AM
  #47
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Well, I think that at this point, arguments shouldn't be wrong when looked at it objectively. Starting the analysis with Bill Quackenbush being a small D-Men really made me scream. I would have deleted this post if I would have been you. (As I did with my reviews when Sturminator complained about Harry Cameron being labelled a drunk, and while I don't remember using those exact words, it was probably much more "black or white" than what I meant. Not wanting to lead anybody in wrong directions made me delete all the reviews, except on LL's team, as I thought it was a team that might not get the respect it deserved (which happened...), and I had drawn a rather positive global portrait of that team... My rather short fuse in the morning was also a bit to blame when I erased the reviews, though, and went a little ballistic on Sturm thereafter, but it quickly settled down).

This said, not much is gonna made me change my mind : that round was way too much won on rhetorics, even if your team was probably the worse match I could have to start the draft. In fact, I'm officially on hiatus for next draft - hockey shouldn't be about rhetorics, and it exactly what happened in this draft, the last MLD (even though I was beaten by a team much more upset-likely than yours), and even the last ATD where I was matched-up against the worst (or the best, depending on the point of view) GM when it comes to rhetorics (Mind you, something I noticed again in this draft...) I'll (probably) consult a new GM for the uncoming MLD. I just disliked what happened this time. Sorry to be so crude about it, I just cannot explain this in any other way.

Honestly, it pains me a little to say all this, because you have a great team that should never, never have finished 6th in our division (or in any division for that matter). You might have won the round anyway otherwise, and there would have been nothing I could have said about that. But considering what happened, I can't help but think of your victory as slightly... tainted.
ok, i see your point. when i saw the result, i thought maybe i was able to convince a few people.
i hope there are no hard feelings. we'll likely lose in the next round anyway.
my view was that the discussion was very important, because the details and matchups must be considered and the 2 teams were close. i figured our best chance was to put forth a specific gameplan based on our strengths.
it's also just interesting to think about how the teams would play.
i thought just letting people look at the rosters is not enough, (did everyone know ullman was an incredible forechecker?). we had to explain the gameplan, why it can work, etc.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2007, 11:15 AM
  #48
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
ok, i see your point. when i saw the result, i thought maybe i was able to convince a few people.
i hope there are no hard feelings. we'll likely lose in the next round anyway.
my view was that the discussion was very important, because the details and matchups must be considered and the 2 teams were close. i figured our best chance was to put forth a specific gameplan based on our strengths.
it's also just interesting to think about how the teams would play.
i thought just letting people look at the rosters is not enough, (did everyone know ullman was an incredible forechecker?). we had to explain the gameplan, why it can work, etc.
In fact, I think my team was a better match to go against Halifax than you (but I wouldn't have happened), and your team was the best match to go against the Canadiens.

The other problem I had with this (it's not our round, as our two teams were kinda similarily build in a sense) is that it's absolutely impossible to win with underrated D-Mens, while it is possible to with with underrated forwards. Such biases explains why D-Mens goes too early in those drafts. The thing is : most underrated D-Mens did one thing well... their job. Actually, many teams won the cup while having a much better forwards group than their d-group (if that makes sense). Aside from Orr and Coffey, the B's and the Oilers had a rather unspectacular group who could really do their job, and the same thing about the Broad Street Bullies. Nothing flashy, but damn efficient at doing their job.

I didn't wanted to bring those points in the comparison (and I had a rather hard schedule last week so I didn't all the time I wanted - plus the fact I really need lots of time whenever I'm trying to argue something because I often think my ramblings aren't exactly cohesive at first) between our teams because it just didn't have anything to do there. However, this doesn't explain why my team got much more love in the season than in the postseason (the other way around would have made much more sense). The thing is... I can't see myself building my team of any other way.


Last edited by MXD: 11-27-2007 at 11:26 AM.
MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2007, 03:38 PM
  #49
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
The other problem I had with this (it's not our round, as our two teams were kinda similarily build in a sense) is that it's absolutely impossible to win with underrated D-Mens, while it is possible to with with underrated forwards. Such biases explains why D-Mens goes too early in those drafts. The thing is : most underrated D-Mens did one thing well... their job. Actually, many teams won the cup while having a much better forwards group than their d-group (if that makes sense). Aside from Orr and Coffey, the B's and the Oilers had a rather unspectacular group who could really do their job, and the same thing about the Broad Street Bullies. Nothing flashy, but damn efficient at doing their job.
Underrated is fine if you can prove such, but not as good is another story.

I've been conflicted by the same problem as you, and it simply comes down to this, who do the teams face? Carolina won with a mediocre defense, but, in the entire Eastern conference playoffs, the best d-men they played was Markov and Rafalski. They did not face an ATD top 3 d-man until the finals. Tampa won with Dan Boyle as a #1, thing is, Robyn Regher is the best d-man he faced. So it's all relative. You don't need to always have the best defense, but giving up any advantage is always a risk. I voted for Seattle because better goaltending, better defense and you having a slight edge up front, the advantages just played to Seattle, it was tight, but I had to see Seattle eek out a win. It might be because I'm not a fan of Anderson or Barber and I am a fan of Barry and Foyston, but, personal biasses always play.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2007, 03:47 PM
  #50
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Underrated is fine if you can prove such, but not as good is another story.
What I meant by underrated was more "anonymous". I can't come up with a great example right away, but I refer to the comparison GBC did between Wally Stanowski and Flash Hollett on the history board. Maybe Hollett had the 1st 20 goal season, but seriously, between Hollett at 2xx and Stanowski at the 2nd half of the 400ies, I would never hesitate and pick Stanowski 10 times out of 10 in any circumstances, and there are LOTS of D-Mens like Stanowski still available in the latter rounds.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.