Khristich reputation is somewhat wrong. He could battle for pucks and did but he was a moody player and one to just give up. Since you have him on the second line and I doubt you are relying on him in game 7s I think it's good player here.
Khristich is a great player here. I just don't see his puckwinning efforts as something that you can consistently rely on. His linemates aren't shrinking violets, so maybe he doesn't need to be consistent at it.
Boucher is definitely a AAA-calibre coach, though I have no idea what style he preferred. I love his innovative streak.
Fairly traditional scoring 1st line. Guidolin is a good puck winner at this level, and his offense isn't terrible either. Reichel's a solid 1st line center based off his NHL career; he's a very good one if you care about international tournaments. Earl Robinson is the star of the line, and one of the better offensive talents in this draft.
Stumpel is a solid 2nd liner - I like his size as a contrast to the smaller, speedier Reichel. His wingers are okay - McEachern is a jack of all trades. MacDonald has one outstanding year, one good year, and the rest kind of a write off offensively. I'd love for him to provide more than scoring, considering how thin his resume is after his 2nd best year. On the other hand, a winger in the AAA draft with a top 10 finish in scoring isn't exactly a common commodity.
My brief read on your third line is that it has three jack-of-all-trades, masters-at-none, which is fine.
4th line is another solid defensive line; I really like Curtis Brown as a penalty killer.
Defense seems solid. Bowman is definitely better than I thought before. When I see multiple old newspaper articles calling a player a "star," I take notice. Boucher is someone I would have had my eyes on if I participated in this as a right-hander for the power play.
I like Puppa's regular season peak. I think that in retrospect, he should have won the 1996 Vezina instead of Jim Carey. He had a couple of other good seasons too. His playoff record is a little scary; how does Fowler look in the playoffs if Puppa falters?
Boucher is definitely a AAA-calibre coach, though I have no idea what style he preferred. I love his innovative streak.
Fairly traditional scoring 1st line. Guidolin is a good puck winner at this level, and his offense isn't terrible either. Reichel's a solid 1st line center based off his NHL career; he's a very good one if you care about international tournaments. Earl Robinson is the star of the line, and one of the better offensive talents in this draft.
Stumpel is a solid 2nd liner - I like his size as a contrast to the smaller, speedier Reichel. His wingers are okay - McEachern is a jack of all trades. MacDonald has one outstanding year, one good year, and the rest kind of a write off offensively. I'd love for him to provide more than scoring, considering how thin his resume is after his 2nd best year. On the other hand, a winger in the AAA draft with a top 10 finish in scoring isn't exactly a common commodity.
My brief read on your third line is that it has three jack-of-all-trades, masters-at-none, which is fine.
4th line is another solid defensive line; I really like Curtis Brown as a penalty killer.
Defense seems solid. Bowman is definitely better than I thought before. When I see multiple old newspaper articles calling a player a "star," I take notice. Boucher is someone I would have had my eyes on if I participated in this as a right-hander for the power play.
I like Puppa's regular season peak. I think that in retrospect, he should have won the 1996 Vezina instead of Jim Carey. He had a couple of other good seasons too. His playoff record is a little scary; how does Fowler look in the playoffs if Puppa falters?
I think everyone except for the voters thought that. Puppa, Hackett, Hebert, Hasek, Hextall, Richter and Vanbiesbrouck all had a better season than Carey but everyone stared at those 9 shutouts.
Two reviews already and you aren't even in the draft, I need to get on your level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
Boucher is definitely a AAA-calibre coach, though I have no idea what style he preferred. I love his innovative streak.
You know I'm still a bit unsure too. It's hard to say considering he probably spent 3-4 seasons coaching a team that he'd have preferred to not play at all.
His Cup winner was a really vanilla squad too. Two excellent lines in Patrick-Watson-Hextall and Schibicky and the Colvilles, elite goalie in Kerr, and a pretty average defense after Coulter. It seems interesting he won a cup with Ott Heller and Babe Pratt as two of his defenseman, so maybe he'll love Boucher and Norton?
Quote:
Stumpel is a solid 2nd liner - I like his size as a contrast to the smaller, speedier Reichel. His wingers are okay - McEachern is a jack of all trades. MacDonald has one outstanding year, one good year, and the rest kind of a write off offensively. I'd love for him to provide more than scoring, considering how thin his resume is after his 2nd best year. On the other hand, a winger in the AAA draft with a top 10 finish in scoring isn't exactly a common commodity.
Yeah I really wish MacDonald had some more there too since his resume is the weakest and doesn't have anything to offset it. The fact that his body started breaking down as he got a chance to play with Apps and Pronovost didn't really help matters either, but I think he grades out as a solid second liner comparatively speaking.
Quote:
Defense seems solid. Bowman is definitely better than I thought before. When I see multiple old newspaper articles calling a player a "star," I take notice. Boucher is someone I would have had my eyes on if I participated in this as a right-hander for the power play.
I like Puppa's regular season peak. I think that in retrospect, he should have won the 1996 Vezina instead of Jim Carey. He had a couple of other good seasons too. His playoff record is a little scary; how does Fowler look in the playoffs if Puppa falters?
Fowler had two playoffs in the PCHA playing two games with a total goals winner.
He had a good shot in '18 with the regular season champion Seattle Mets, but they lost in the playoffs to Vancouver. The loss was 2 goals to 3, with Game 1 being a 2-2 tie and in Game 2 Fowler allowed the lone goal. That was his best shot to play for the Cup, but then again he didn't go out too badly.
His Victoria team in '23 finished second in the PCHA and made the playoffs, but again lost to Vancouver. He actually won one of the two games this time, but lost the series played by total goals 5-3.
Quote:
Boucher is a AAA coach at worst, you man. He dropped hard this time, and though much of the fall was warranted, I don't know that all of it was.
Are we sure Fowler shouldn't be the starter?
Boucher was also the first coach to use two goalies apparently so I imagine he'll split both throughout the season. The question is who starts in the playoffs, which I really don't know. Puppa's pretty weak when it comes to the playoffs and Fowler's a question mark.
Boucher is a AAA coach at worst, you man. He dropped hard this time, and though much of the fall was warranted, I don't know that all of it was.
Are we sure Fowler shouldn't be the starter?
Yeah, I was thinking that Boucher should be a MLD-level coach, but I didn't want to stir up too much. I just checked and he coached a lot longer in the NHL than I thought too. Given what he did with the penalty kill of the 1940s Rangers, I'd have to think that his AAA team will get a boost to their PK.
Boucher, Starsi, and Sutter (after 2012) all stand out as coaches who probably should have been taken in the MLD.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-05-2012 at 09:30 PM.
I'd like to see us take a week for analysis, assassination, and promotion of players. That's what I'd like, but it depends on the discussions within this thread keeping up. So go ahead and do someone's lineup. They will pass it forward - if they know what's good for them.
Start thinking about your favourites as well, as we will have a comprehensive all-star vote similar to what we did in the MLD (although there will be no "expanded" option this time), so pay attention to your internal lists, and hopefully adjust up and down based on what you read in this thread.
Scrutinize, and stand up to scrutiny! Any good pick should be able to do that.
I'm going to try to do some assassinations, but I'll throw this out there for now. Here's what I have for the best 10 centers in the draft after messing with it throughout the draft. Who am I overrating/underrating? Missing anyone?
1. Don Raleigh - Probably the best offensive player in the draft after Sykora, definitely the best pre-expansion forward in the draft
2. Olli Jokinen - Best regular season resume in a group that's pretty similar
3. Mike Bullard - Very similar to Jokinen, goal-scoring center who wore the C on some weak teams and not the best all-arounder, solid playoff record compared to others
4. Robert Reichel - Regular season resume puts him with his fellow post-expansion guys listed, weak in the playoffs, very good international career but a weak era overall
5. Mike Ribeiro - Not sure why he fell so as long as he did, yes we know his flaws but that resume is pretty much the same as everyone from Jokinen-Olczyk, decent in the playoffs as well
6. Ed Olczyk - Probably my most controversial spot so far, I think he belongs in the same tier as these guys but I don't see his longevity vaulting him any higher (Would team scoring ranks vindicate Edzo?)
7. George Gee - Way too good of a scoring resume to be just a "sparkplug," performed in the playoffs as well
8. Dutch Reibel - Another somewhat low ranking, short career with an incredible peak for this level, the linemate factor plays a big part in this spot
9. Bill Carson - Really underrated Carson coming into the draft unaware of his OHA career, I think it vaults him over the Creighton, McFadden, and Conachers of the world with better NHL resumes.
10. Jozef Stumpel - Solid scorer with a long career, impresses with longevity but a decent peak underneath it
Just missing the cut would be Vladimir Ruzicka (tantalizing talent for this level even with the warts) and John Cullen (better peak than Stumpel).
I'm going to try to do some assassinations, but I'll throw this out there for now. Here's what I have for the best 10 centers in the draft after messing with it throughout the draft. Who am I overrating/underrating? Missing anyone?
1. Don Raleigh - Probably the best offensive player in the draft after Sykora, definitely the best pre-expansion forward in the draft
2. Olli Jokinen - Best regular season resume in a group that's pretty similar
3. Mike Bullard - Very similar to Jokinen, goal-scoring center who wore the C on some weak teams and not the best all-arounder, solid playoff record compared to others
4. Robert Reichel - Regular season resume puts him with his fellow post-expansion guys listed, weak in the playoffs, very good international career but a weak era overall
5. Mike Ribeiro - Not sure why he fell so as long as he did, yes we know his flaws but that resume is pretty much the same as everyone from Jokinen-Olczyk, decent in the playoffs as well
6. Ed Olczyk - Probably my most controversial spot so far, I think he belongs in the same tier as these guys but I don't see his longevity vaulting him any higher (Would team scoring ranks vindicate Edzo?)
7. George Gee - Way too good of a scoring resume to be just a "sparkplug," performed in the playoffs as well
8. Dutch Reibel - Another somewhat low ranking, short career with an incredible peak for this level, the linemate factor plays a big part in this spot
9. Bill Carson - Really underrated Carson coming into the draft unaware of his OHA career, I think it vaults him over the Creighton, McFadden, and Conachers of the world with better NHL resumes.
10. Jozef Stumpel - Solid scorer with a long career, impresses with longevity but a decent peak underneath it
Just missing the cut would be Vladimir Ruzicka (tantalizing talent for this level even with the warts) and John Cullen (better peak than Stumpel).
Not a bad list. I pretty much agree. One quibble I have is that Ribeiro and Stumpel are more or less the same - why have them five spots apart?
Also, I think there has to be room for another guy over Reibel. I've always beek skeptical of that guy.
I agree that Bullard and Jokinen are very similar. I would give him the slight edge as a player because, as you said, he has a bit of a playoff record, and I don't think his deficiencies are as pronounced. I could be wrong. Can the eras account for him having the same career point total in 300 fewer games?
I think Raleigh can take the cake as the best center here. And I definitely agree that Carson is the next best pre-expansion center, ahead of those other names.
Billy Barlow should be a darkhorse candidate for this list.
Also, I agree Cullen and Jimmy Carson should be honorable mentions. They were actually the guys I was thinking of when I tried to put a number on Skene Ronan's legacy when Mike Farkas raised the question of whether he was HHOF-caliber.
I also don't know exactly where to put Olczyk, but I am pretty sure he belongs up there. You're right that his "within team" rankings help his case.
There are other guys I want to consider putting on there due to two-way games - Clement, Schock, Boschman, McKechnie - but who am I kidding, that's a different class of player, they don't have the upside to make the top-10 (which is why we will be making lists for top-6 and bottom-6 centers! )
Not a bad list. I pretty much agree. One quibble I have is that Ribeiro and Stumpel are more or less the same - why have them five spots apart?
Part of it is I don't think there's much a gap between Ribeiro and Reichel but you're right. I called it the Jokinen-Olczyk group but maybe it should be to Stumpel.
Do you think a gap after Bullard or Reichel would make more sense with Carson and Gee moved up?
Quote:
I agree that Bullard and Jokinen are very similar. I would give him the slight edge as a player because, as you said, he has a bit of a playoff record, and I don't think his deficiencies are as pronounced. I could be wrong. Can the eras account for him having the same career point total in 300 fewer games?
Interesting question and I didn't realize that. I can buy playoffs as the difference maker with Jokinen not using those extra games to pull himself away.
Quote:
I think Raleigh can take the cake as the best center here. And I definitely agree that Carson is the next best pre-expansion center, ahead of those other names.
Interesting you'd take Carson over Gee. Those OHA finishes do seem pretty impressive though and he had basically no help from his teammates.
Quote:
Billy Barlow should be a darkhorse candidate for this list.
Also, I agree Cullen and Jimmy Carson should be honorable mentions. They were actually the guys I was thinking of when I tried to put a number on Skene Ronan's legacy when Mike Farkas raised the question of whether he was HHOF-caliber.
I totally forgot about Barlow, I'd have him with Ruzicka at the worst. Cullen and Carson are back-to-back on my list.
Quote:
There are other guys I want to consider putting on there due to two-way games - Clement, Schock, Boschman, McKechnie - but who am I kidding, that's a different class of player, they don't have the upside to make the top-10 (which is why we will be making lists for top-6 and bottom-6 centers! )
More or less, you have this right.
This was my top-6 list, guess I should have mentioned that. I like Schock and Langkow as top-six guys a lot and considered making them honorable mentions for their all-around contributions, but it's hard to see who they'd knock out of that group really.
Part of it is I don't think there's much a gap between Ribeiro and Reichel but you're right. I called it the Jokinen-Olczyk group but maybe it should be to Stumpel.
Do you think a gap after Bullard or Reichel would make more sense with Carson and Gee moved up?
yeah, I'd say so. it would better represent the eras we drafted from, too.
Quote:
Interesting you'd take Carson over Gee. Those OHA finishes do seem pretty impressive though and he had basically no help from his teammates.
Actually - haha - I forgot about Gee when I was thinking about pre-expansion guys. That said, I like him over the Creighton/Conacher class, but can't conclusively say he's better than Carson. Could go either way.
I'm not sure Jokinen is being treated fairly here. His negatives are obvious, but Bullard had more to work with in terms of matchups and linemates if you ask me. Jokinen was the best that Florida had, and it wasn't close. He received the toughest matchups and faced the best defensive players that the other team had. Bullard had the luxury of playing with other very good players, and since the teams he played for actually had depth(Lemieux, Loob, Nieuwendyk, Mullen, etc.) the other team couldn't focus solely on stopping him. Bullard's playoff resume shouldn't put him over Jokinen just because Jokinen doesn't have an extensive resume. It's a very small sample size, but in 6 playoff games he had 5 points, the most of any Flame in those playoffs.
It might not be the playoffs, but Jokinen does have a solid international resume that can be seen as playing on a "big stage" and sort of like the playoffs. For example, he tied Selanne for most goals in the entire 2006 Olympics.
Interesting question and I didn't realize that. I can buy playoffs as the difference maker with Jokinen not using those extra games to pull himself away.
I'm not at home, so I can't double-check the numbers, but I am very sure thay Jokinen has an edge in regular season scoring.
Bullard has the better peak, but Jokinen's consistency as a good scorer is very impressive. He was my top-rated post-expansion player coming into the draft.
I'm not at home, so I can't double-check the numbers, but I am very sure thay Jokinen has an edge in regular season scoring.
Bullard has the better peak, but Jokinen's consistency as a good scorer is very impressive. He was my top-rated post-expansion player coming into the draft.
Here's what I've got:
Bullard - 727 GP, 391 ESP, 40 per season / 221 PPP, 21 per season
Top 6 % scores = 402
Jokinen - 1042 GP, 548 ESP, 43 per season / 294 PPP, 23 per season
Top 6 % scores = 412
I guess what I meant to say is Jokinen didn't use the extra games to have a more meaningful set of seasons, but seeing as their averages are similar and one did it for 300 games longer I see your point.
The only thing is, those adjusted figures are very biased against 80s players, as has been well documented. 80s players should obviously have their totals adjusted downwards, just not to the extent that hockey reference and overpass' numbers do.
The only thing is, those adjusted figures are very biased against 80s players, as has been well documented. 80s players should obviously have their totals adjusted downwards, just not to the extent that hockey reference and overpass' numbers do.
The 80s are hard to judge as it became an outlier era. we wont see any good adjusted stats for it I dont think.
I'm not sure what's known about Bullard and what's not...I'm just gonna copy and paste from a different discussion if I may, it might have some minor relevance...
Bullard was a very selfish player.
Seemed like a player that would be good on bad teams but less effective on good teams because his flaws would be criticized more because they would have more of a negative impact on the team as a whole. On those mid-80's Pittsburgh teams, who cares that he tried to skate through 3 players on any given rush and that he didn't play defense and that he generally didn't care (though he did play with an edge at times). To the point, that I started with, it explains why he didn't spend long on that very good Flames team and despite a 100-point season, they used him to upgrade their center position (Gilmour) and push the Flames over the top just before they won the 1989 Stanley Cup. Despite being a near point-per-game player in his career, he took himself to Europe (and didn't even seem to care to challenge himself, as he played in a tier-two Swiss league in his first year back over there after playing for Toronto; then played in the German league which was wasn't as good as it was today as it was transitioning from the Bundesliga) where he could play however he wanted.
Bullard wasn't cut out for being on a successful team, so no, him and Lemieux would not have been a dynamic duo AND be Stanley Cup champions.
As bad it sounds, but I mean it in purely a hockey way, it would have been better for us if Fogarty put down the bottle over Bullard...
Fun fact: Bullard scored 51 goals in 1984 and not a single one of them was a game winner.
Everything that had been published about Bullard that I have access to is in our profile of him. We didn't leave anything out. Same with all our players. I think he was definitely a great "bad team scorer"... until 1988, when he proved he could be a key player on a great team in 1988. Was he Gilmour? Obviously not.
Jan Starsi was the Czechoslovakian National Team's coach in the mid-late 70s as they beat the USSR more often than they probably should. His teams played the Left Wing Lock. Is your team set up to play the LW lock? I'm honestly not sure why Jaroslav Pitner goes so far ahead of Starsi now (including by me!) One thing I noticed after drafting Pitner was that he was not in the IIHF Hall of Fame and Starsi was.
Bill Carson is one of the better offensive players at this level. Pominville brings a little of everything. Daze was huge, but was inconsistent at using his size. But then, you aren't exactly going to get a top notch power forward in the AAA draft. I like this line even if neither wing is really a star on his own.
Kaleta is described as a "magnificent playmaking left wing," and I guess Connelly is the guy he's feeding the puck to? Schock's offense is unimpressive for a scoring line, but his two-way game is nice.
I really like your third line and without putting much effort into comparisons, imagine that they are one of the better two-way lines in the draft. Miguay went way too high in the ATD not long ago, due to VI's pimping. I think this is a good place for him though. Dutch Hiller really shouldn't have fallen past the MLD.
I really like Fergus as a two-way player at this level (I've drafted him before) and his wingers seem like solid utility players. Definitely not a crash and bang 4th line though.
Solid first pairing brings a little of everything.
We almost drafted Kent Douglas as our #6 puck mover in the MLD, but went with Streit instead. I really like Douglas as an offensive defenseman in the MLD. Orlando is a nasty brusier who complements him well.
Cechmanek has to be one of the better regular season goalies here. I have recently been convinced on HOH that there really was a case for him to win the 2000-01 Vezina, and that's on top of his play in the Czech Elite League. But man, when Cechmanek had a bad game in the playoffs, things really fell apart for him. In case Forbes is needed, what's his playoff record look like?
IMO, Douglas is one of the best offensive defensemen at this level. Seems kind of a waste not to have him on your 1st PP. 1st PP is otherwise solid. I'd prefer someone better offensively than Schock to center the 2nd PP - didn't Kaleta play some C?
PK is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velociraptor
Wish I could've made biographies for some of my players this time around, although I've been unbelievably busy.
UTAH GRIZZLIES
Coach: Jan Starsi Captain: Ron Schock Assistant Captains: Tom Fitzgerald, Lucien DeBlois
Jan Starsi was the Czechoslovakian National Team's coach in the mid-late 70s as they beat the USSR more often than they probably should. His teams played the Left Wing Lock. Is your team set up to play the LW lock? I'm honestly not sure why Jaroslav Pitner goes so far ahead of Starsi now (including by me!) One thing I noticed after drafting Pitner was that he was not in the IIHF Hall of Fame and Starsi was.
Bill Carson is one of the better offensive players at this level. Pominville brings a little of everything. Daze was huge, but was inconsistent at using his size. But then, you aren't exactly going to get a top notch power forward in the AAA draft. I like this line even if neither wing is really a star on his own.
Kaleta is described as a "magnificent playmaking left wing," and I guess Connelly is the guy he's feeding the puck to? Schock's offense is unimpressive for a scoring line, but his two-way game is nice.
I really like your third line and without putting much effort into comparisons, imagine that they are one of the better two-way lines in the draft. Miguay went way too high in the ATD not long ago, due to VI's pimping. I think this is a good place for him though. Dutch Hiller really shouldn't have fallen past the MLD.
I really like Fergus as a two-way player at this level (I've drafted him before) and his wingers seem like solid utility players. Definitely not a crash and bang 4th line though.
Solid first pairing brings a little of everything.
We almost drafted Kent Douglas as our #6 puck mover in the MLD, but went with Streit instead. I really like Douglas as an offensive defenseman in the MLD. Orlando is a nasty brusier who complements him well.
Cechmanek has to be one of the better regular season goalies here. I have recently been convinced on HOH that there really was a case for him to win the 2000-01 Vezina, and that's on top of his play in the Czech Elite League. But man, when Cechmanek had a bad game in the playoffs, things really fell apart for him. In case Forbes is needed, what's his playoff record look like?
IMO, Douglas is one of the best offensive defensemen at this level. Seems kind of a waste not to have him on your 1st PP. 1st PP is otherwise solid. I'd prefer someone better offensively than Schock to center the 2nd PP - didn't Kaleta play some C?
PK is fine.
2 games in the NHL. Billys goalies doesnt seem like they will be around to do much in the playoffs. I like the rest of the team tho.
)
