HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 Lineup Assassination Thread - Bob Cole Division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2013, 08:32 PM
  #76
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I highly doubt that, Ted Lindsay would have a field day with that soft line.
Weren't you throttled enough last time you brought this up?

Quote:
Keep telling yourself that, when describing Sergei Gonchar the word "Monster" in anything doesn't come to mind. Sure he'd be a good 4th dman puck mover, unfortunately for you he was a large reach and was drafted as your number 3...
When a guy is THE best offensive defenseman for an extended period of time, monster certainly does apply.

As for being a reach, there wasn't a single guy drafted after him who is better, and he's better than many of the ones drafted in the round before... and that includes Mike Grant.

Quote:
and how many times was Liapkin voted the top defenseman in a World championship?
Zero.

Same as Gennady Tsygankov. Maybe you should move Svedberg up to your 2nd pair!

Quote:
Care to show us where you got this info on Goldham??

I've read his bio you made for him and not once does it reference any type of physical corner work or physical play in general.

Andrew MacDonald currently leads the NHL in blocked shots...are we suppose to buy him as a physical presence?
Read it again... There are references to his hitting, strength, and toughness.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:20 PM
  #77
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,035
vCash: 500
Seattle Eskimos Review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
Seattle Eskimos



Coach: Joel Quenneville
Assistant coach: Tommy Sandlin


Markus Näslund - Peter Forsberg (A) - Odie Cleghorn
Syd Howe - Darryl Sittler (C) - Dino Ciccarelli
Mats Näslund - Edgar Laprade - Bob Nystrom
Jan Erixon - Derek Sanderson - Alf Skinner
Bob Probert, Danny Briere

Denis Potvin (A) - Butch Bouchard
Brad McCrimmon - Flash Hollett
Jamie Macoun - Glen Wesley
Mark Tinordi

Martin Brodeur
Mike Richter

PP1: Markus Näslund - Peter Forsberg - Dino Ciccarelli, Denis Potvin - Flash Hollett

PP2: Mats Näslund - Darryl Sittler - Odie Cleghorn, Syd Howe - Glen Wesley

PK1: Derek Sanderson - Jan Erixon, Denis Potvin- Butch Bouchard

PK2: Edgar Laprade - Alf Skinner, Brad McCrimmon - Jamie Macoun
Coaching and Leadership

I guess Quennville is a worthy ATD coach by now, though he's probably a low-end one. As a long time Eastern Conference fan, I am not as familiar with his style as others, but i do know he tends to be one to ride his star players. Sandlin helps out tactically, though I'm still unclear as to what his specific role will be at running the bench.

I have no idea why you would want Sittler to be your captain over Denis Potvin. Potvin was a legendary leader who captained a dynasty... Sittler captained the Leafs. Butch Bouchard was also a legendary leader, who deserves a letter, though I can understand giving the As to Forsberg and Sittler just because Bouchard is Potvin's partner.

Forwards

When you don't draft a forward until the 3rd round, your team is going to be lacking a little punch. Forsberg is a good all-round 1st line center when he plays, obviously less good when injured. With Naslund on the left, and Cleghorn as a physical presence on the right, the line has good chemistry, though I feel Markus and Odie are more second line talents than natural first liners.

Second line is solid but unspectacular. Sittler and Howe are both well-rounded offensive players and Howe can backcheck for the line, always nice next to someone like Ciccarelli, who wasn't much for defense. Ciccarelli will do anything to score goals in tight, but doesn't do anything else particular well. No real dedicated puck winner, but nobody on the line is soft, so they should be able to win pucks by committee.

Third line is a bit of an odd mix of players. Laprade is a controversial guy here. Personally, I think he's a great third liner who can rag the puck, play defense, kill penalties, and pass the puck to his wingers. I don't know if there's enough defensive play from his wingers to really make it a shut down line though. Mats Naslund was a great energy guy who can score on Laprade's passes, though. Nystrom was apparently an absolute beast along the boards, but i see him as strictly a 4th liner at this level.

Fourth line is a great shut down line, but I wouldn't give an offensive black hole like Erixon that many minutes at this level. I can see Quenneville using this line like he used the John Madden line in Chicago in 2010 - put them out there for as many defensive zone draws as possible, then get them off the ice. Kind of a waste of Derek Sanderson, but your other three centers are pretty strong, so what can you do?

I don't like Probert and Briere as your only two spares at all. If any of your forwards get injured (and Forsberg and Erixon were definitely injury-prone), you could be in trouble. Probert is a much better hockey player than someone like Laraque, but he's still limited at this level, and I really think Briere would be a defensive liability at this level.

Defense

Top pairing is one of the stronger ones in the draft. I would not have drafted Potvin as early as you did, but he's still an excellent #1. Bouchard is an average #2 who can stay at home when Potvin rushes. Together, they'll terrorize softer scoring lines.

Second pairing is pretty average. I see McCrimmon on about the same level as Derian Hatcher - that rare defenseman who can make a real impact without possessing much puck skill, though McCrimmon had more than Hatcher. He's a solid #3. Hollett is likely terrible in his own zone, but he's very good offensively, and you put him in a good position to succeed with a great defensive partner and playing behind a 1st pairing that is excellent defensively. He works as a #4.

Bottom pairing seems below average - I don't see a natural #5 on the team. I like Macoun as a lot as a defensively oriented #6, but he looks to be your #5. Wesley and Tinordi are pretty meh, IMO.

Goaltending

Ugh, you actually got Richter to back up Brodeur? LOL. I remember Rangers fans used to insist Richter was better than Brodeur, lol. Anyway, Brodeur is a very good goalie obviously. His puckhandling will help out the bottom pairing a lot, and will be nice when Hollett is caught up ice too. Less helpful when Potvin is on the ice. Brodeur plays so much, the back up doesn't matter as long as he isn't a lockerroom problem, and Richter definitely isn't.

Special teams

Good first PP. I think Ciccarelli is a pretty weak 2nd line winger at even strength, but he should be good in front of the net. The point men are excellent. Markus Naslund is the only relative weak spot.

Second unit seems average to below average, with Wesley being fairly weak back there. Luckily, I would assume Potvin-Hollett would play most of the PP.

Elite penalty killing centers and excellent defensemen back there. Erixon and Skinner are okay for their roles.

Overall

I like:
  • Very good top pairing should be a nightmare for softer forwards
  • You actually put Flash Hollett in a good position to succeed
  • Potvin-Hollett is an excellent PP pairing
  • Brodeur's puckhandling should really help out the 2nd and 3rd pairing
  • Strong penalty kill

I think these are your weaknesses:
  • Lack of offensive firepower, especially in the games that Forsberg misses
  • Third line is an odd mix of players, and I would prefer not to give Nystrom big minutes at this level - maybe switch him with Skinner?
  • Very little puck skills from your defensemen past Potvin and Holett. Bottom pairing could have trouble in transition, though Brodeur helps out there
  • I realize Briere and Probert are just spares, but I do think you could be in trouble if injuries hit your forwards.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:34 PM
  #78
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Weren't you throttled enough last time you brought this up?
My top line would run yours into the ground, is that even up for debate?



Quote:
When a guy is THE best offensive defenseman for an extended period of time, monster certainly does apply.
Well that's great news for me....Mike Grant was considered by many as the top defenseman of his era


Quote:
Zero.

Same as Gennady Tsygankov. Maybe you should move Svedberg up to your 2nd pair!

Svedberg could pass as a 2nd pairing dman agreed, however a defensive guy like Tsygankov pairs much better with Grant.


Quote:
Read it again... There are references to his hitting, strength, and toughness.
Please show us, if they are there show us.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 09:51 PM
  #79
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
My top line would run yours into the ground, is that even up for debate?
Absolutely.

Lindsay is tough, but small. Kennedy is gritty, but not really physical. Rousseau is very soft. I have no idea why you even think that line is particularly tough - it's just average.

Howie Morenz is the most physically punishing guy on either line.

Quote:
Well that's great news for me....Mike Grant was considered by many as the top defenseman of his era.
Mike Grant was probably the best defenseman in the world for a span of a couple years, but definitely wasn't the best of his era. Both Hod Stuart and Harvey Pulford are significantly better.

Quote:
Svedberg could pass as a 2nd pairing dman agreed, however a defensive guy like Tsygankov pairs much better with Grant.
Svedberg is closer to being a spare than he is to a 2nd pairing defenseman....

Quote:
Please show us, if they are there show us.
"Tall and powerful, Goldham was a deceptive type of player. He was faster than he appeared and considerably tougher than his outwardly passive nature suggested"

"He was known for playing the man well in his own zone"

"a tough defensive defenseman"

"He is the greatest competitor in hockey"


The fact that Goldham was one of the biggest guys of his era helps. He was 2 inches taller than Gordie Howe.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 10:16 PM
  #80
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
You've heard it here first folks:

Howie Morenz is tougher then Ted Lindsay and Bob Goldham was tough because he was tall...vote accordingly.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2013, 10:34 PM
  #81
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Mike Grant was probably the best defenseman in the world for a span of a couple years, but definitely wasn't the best of his era. Both Hod Stuart and Harvey Pulford are significantly better.
Have you changed your opinion on Mike Grant since a couple of years ago? I remember that you used to be extremely high on him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
You've heard it here first folks:

Howie Morenz is tougher then Ted Lindsay and Bob Goldham was tough because he was tall...vote accordingly.
You guys both really need to drop the hyperbole; it's annoying to read. Dreakmur provided much more as to Bob Goldham's toughness than just his height. When he posts evidence and you ignore it in the next post, you just look foolish.

But frankly, calling Howie Morenz more physically punishing than Ted Lindsay and Ted Kennedy is pretty goofy, as well.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-27-2013 at 10:52 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 12:24 AM
  #82
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,494
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You guys both really need to drop the hyperbole; it's annoying to read. Dreakmur provided much more as to Bob Goldham's toughness than just his height. When he posts evidence and you ignore it in the next post, you just look foolish.

But frankly, calling Howie Morenz more physically punishing than Ted Lindsay and Ted Kennedy is pretty goofy, as well.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 01:02 AM
  #83
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,911
vCash: 500
Speaking of physicality...








VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 03:55 AM
  #84
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Aren't you the guy who trashed Hod Stuart for having a short career?
I'm the guy who criticized Hod Stuart because, although he played pro hockey for seven seasons, we only have information that he was a star for 4-5 of them, yes.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 04:13 AM
  #85
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Have you changed your opinion on Mike Grant since a couple of years ago? I remember that you used to be extremely high on him.
I still like Mike Grant. He's fine on a 2nd pairing. He's just no Sergei Gonchar.

Quote:
But frankly, calling Howie Morenz more physically punishing than Ted Lindsay and Ted Kennedy is pretty goofy, as well.
I'll stand behind that one all day, though I don't know why I spend so much time writing bios if people aren't going to even read them

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 04:23 AM
  #86
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I'm the guy who criticized Hod Stuart because, although he played pro hockey for seven seasons, we only have information that he was a star for 4-5 of them, yes.
And how is that different from Charlie Conacher, who was only a star for 5-6 years?


Aside from that, Hod Stuart actually played top level hockey for 9 seasons. He started in 1898-99 and played through 1906-07. As early as the 1899-1900 season, he was dominating defensemen in scoring. I know, you haven't read a newspaper article about how good he was that season, but I think it's safe to say that the leading scorer among defensemen qualifies as a star.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 04:27 AM
  #87
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I'll stand behind that one all day, though I don't know why I spend so much time writing bios if people aren't going to even read them
Your bio talks at lengths about how Morenz would go through, rather than around, defensemen to score. That's definitely a type of toughness. How does it make him more physically punishing than Ted Lindsay?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 04:49 AM
  #88
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Your bio talks at lengths about how Morenz would go through, rather than around, defensemen to score. That's definitely a type of toughness. How does it make him more physically punishing than Ted Lindsay?
Mostly, I don't see Ted Lindsay as overly punishing. Sure, he'll hack, whack, chop, elbow, and punch you, but how many times is he going to absolutely run you over? As one of the smaller guys in the draft, I don't see that happening often.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 04:53 AM
  #89
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
And how is that different from Charlie Conacher, who was only a star for 5-6 years?
Well, Charlie Conacher does get knocked in the VsX system for his 6th and 7th best seasons being so much worse than his high peak, so I don't see a problem with how his scoring value is calculated relative to the rest of the forwards.

Quote:
Aside from that, Hod Stuart actually played top level hockey for 9 seasons. He started in 1898-99 and played through 1906-07. As early as the 1899-1900 season, he was dominating defensemen in scoring. I know, you haven't read a newspaper article about how good he was that season, but I think it's safe to say that the leading scorer among defensemen qualifies as a star.
You know as well as I do that scoring is not the end-all and be-all of what makes a defenseman. Stuart was not an all-star in those first few seasons in a quite shallow league. I don't think that makes him any kind of star in those years by ATD standards. More likely, those were "developmental" seasons and Stuart was essentially a young and talented "offenseman", who with some experience grew into being an all-around player.

The point here is that Stuart's full career was most likely not played at the level which eventually put him into the Hall of Fame, so the argument that he had a nine season career and thus should not be knocked for longevity is pretty shady. Conacher actually played ten more-or-less full, healthy seasons in the NHL, it's just that 3-4 of them were not that great, and so don't add much to his legacy. What I'm suggesting here is that Stuart's first few seasons appear to fall into the "not that great" category, and that this makes his actual peak of 4-5 seasons rather short. Anything less than all-star status in the leagues in which Stuart was playing doesn't interest me.


Last edited by Sturminator: 03-28-2013 at 05:33 AM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 04:55 AM
  #90
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Your bio talks at lengths about how Morenz would go through, rather than around, defensemen to score. That's definitely a type of toughness. How does it make him more physically punishing than Ted Lindsay?
I think Lindsay was probably just as aggressive and willing to use his body (and his stick...), but relative to the rest of the league at the time, he gives up a good deal of size and strength to Morenz.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 05:21 AM
  #91
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 500
I will like to start by saying that I liked this assassination. Its a good one, thank you TDMM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Coaching and Leadership

I guess Quennville is a worthy ATD coach by now, though he's probably a low-end one. As a long time Eastern Conference fan, I am not as familiar with his style as others, but i do know he tends to be one to ride his star players. Sandlin helps out tactically, though I'm still unclear as to what his specific role will be at running the bench.
I think Quenneville slots as pretty average. Hes an agressive guy and early on had a hard time to focus on an losing effort and ordered out his guys to start mugging ppl instead (ie why Blues was terrible come playoff time). Sandlin will counter this aswell as provide him with good tactical knowledge and improve team chemistry.

Quote:
I have no idea why you would want Sittler to be your captain over Denis Potvin. Potvin was a legendary leader who captained a dynasty... Sittler captained the Leafs. Butch Bouchard was also a legendary leader, who deserves a letter, though I can understand giving the As to Forsberg and Sittler just because Bouchard is Potvin's partner.
Yes I will probably swith that around.

Forwards

Quote:
When you don't draft a forward until the 3rd round, your team is going to be lacking a little punch. Forsberg is a good all-round 1st line center when he plays, obviously less good when injured. With Naslund on the left, and Cleghorn as a physical presence on the right, the line has good chemistry, though I feel Markus and Odie are more second line talents than natural first liners.
I agree that Markus and Cleghorn might be better suited on a ATD second line but I think they will do well on a line like this. They are also well suited for 1-3-1 tactics.

Quote:
Second line is solid but unspectacular. Sittler and Howe are both well-rounded offensive players and Howe can backcheck for the line, always nice next to someone like Ciccarelli, who wasn't much for defense. Ciccarelli will do anything to score goals in tight, but doesn't do anything else particular well. No real dedicated puck winner, but nobody on the line is soft, so they should be able to win pucks by committee.
Dino is the garbage man and Howe is very versatile which will let me juggle lines incase of injuries.

Quote:
Third line is a bit of an odd mix of players. Laprade is a controversial guy here. Personally, I think he's a great third liner who can rag the puck, play defense, kill penalties, and pass the puck to his wingers. I don't know if there's enough defensive play from his wingers to really make it a shut down line though. Mats Naslund was a great energy guy who can score on Laprade's passes, though. Nystrom was apparently an absolute beast along the boards, but i see him as strictly a 4th liner at this level.
This is not a shutdown line but more of a two-way line. Lets say a defensive line with offensive responsibillities. Since as you mentioned, my team lacks a bit of offensive punch I found it suitable to build up secondary scoring to avoid being shutdown. Nystrom is good enough to play on a third line specially with these two.

Quote:
Fourth line is a great shut down line, but I wouldn't give an offensive black hole like Erixon that many minutes at this level. I can see Quenneville using this line like he used the John Madden line in Chicago in 2010 - put them out there for as many defensive zone draws as possible, then get them off the ice. Kind of a waste of Derek Sanderson, but your other three centers are pretty strong, so what can you do?
Erixon was a great shadower and will excel at it at this level. He's an all-time great at it. This will be our primary shutdown line tho the other liens can work defensively too.

Quote:
I don't like Probert and Briere as your only two spares at all. If any of your forwards get injured (and Forsberg and Erixon were definitely injury-prone), you could be in trouble. Probert is a much better hockey player than someone like Laraque, but he's still limited at this level, and I really think Briere would be a defensive liability at this level.
Probert is versatile and could prolly fill any need in the bottom-6 incase of injuries. I will have to juggle a bit if someone gets injured.

If Forsberg is injured Briere will probably take Sittlers place and Sittler moves up. And if Erixon is injured I will juggle the LWs around having Howe on the Sanderson line while MAts moves up and Probert slots in on a 4th line with Laprade and Nystrom.

Defense

Quote:
Top pairing is one of the stronger ones in the draft. I would not have drafted Potvin as early as you did, but he's still an excellent #1. Bouchard is an average #2 who can stay at home when Potvin rushes. Together, they'll terrorize softer scoring lines.
Ill quote Dreak on this one

Quote:
Bouchard will allow Potvin to run around and kill people!
Quote:
Second pairing is pretty average. I see McCrimmon on about the same level as Derian Hatcher - that rare defenseman who can make a real impact without possessing much puck skill, though McCrimmon had more than Hatcher. He's a solid #3. Hollett is likely terrible in his own zone, but he's very good offensively, and you put him in a good position to succeed with a great defensive partner and playing behind a 1st pairing that is excellent defensively. He works as a #4.
Nothing to add to this really.

Quote:
Bottom pairing seems below average - I don't see a natural #5 on the team. I like Macoun as a lot as a defensively oriented #6, but he looks to be your #5. Wesley and Tinordi are pretty meh, IMO.
Macoun is a good bottom pairing defenseman imo and Wesley fills the role of a bit of a bottom pairing puckmover and is good on the PP. Tinordi adds defense and muscle and I dont think hes meh. He was pretty solid at being a stay-at-home defenseman.



Goaltending

Quote:
Ugh, you actually got Richter to back up Brodeur? LOL. I remember Rangers fans used to insist Richter was better than Brodeur, lol. Anyway, Brodeur is a very good goalie obviously. His puckhandling will help out the bottom pairing a lot, and will be nice when Hollett is caught up ice too. Less helpful when Potvin is on the ice. Brodeur plays so much, the back up doesn't matter as long as he isn't a lockerroom problem, and Richter definitely isn't.
Richter will win those 3-5 games he gets to play instead of Roy

Special teams

Quote:
Good first PP. I think Ciccarelli is a pretty weak 2nd line winger at even strength, but he should be good in front of the net. The point men are excellent. Markus Naslund is the only relative weak spot.

Second unit seems average to below average, with Wesley being fairly weak back there. Luckily, I would assume Potvin-Hollett would play most of the PP
.

Wesley was a decent PP QB even without Bourque. But yes, Potvin and Hollett will be the main pairing on PP.

Elite penalty killing centers and excellent defensemen back there. Erixon and Skinner are okay for their roles.

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 05:39 AM
  #92
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
I think Quenneville slots as pretty average.
That would make Joel Quenneville something like the 16th or 17th best coach of all-time, which I think is a stretch.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 05:43 AM
  #93
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I think Lindsay was probably just as aggressive and willing to use his body (and his stick...), but relative to the rest of the league at the time, he gives up a good deal of size and strength to Morenz.
Saying that "Lindsay was probably just as aggressive and willing to use his body as Morenz" makes it sound like Morenz is the standard for aggression from a scoring line forward, rather than the other way around.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:04 AM
  #94
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Saying that "Lindsay was probably just as aggressive and willing to use his body as Morenz" makes it sound like Morenz is the standard for aggression from a scoring line forward, rather than the other way around.
I assume you have read the updated bio Dreak and vecens put together on Howie Morenz. I think they make a pretty compelling case that Morenz was a physical and aggressive player who played at a high intensity level pretty much all of the time.

Is Ted Lindsay "the standard" to aggression from a scoringline forward? I'd probably put Gordie Howe on that pedestal, and after him guys like Lalonde, Messier and Neely. Size does matter.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:15 AM
  #95
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I assume you have read the updated bio Dreak and vecens put together on Howie Morenz. I think they make a pretty compelling case that Morenz was a physical and aggressive player who played at a high intensity level pretty much all of the time.
Howie Morenz most definitely was a physical and aggressive player who played at a high intensity level pretty much all of the time.

He's also barely bigger than Ted Lindsay after adjusting for the 20 year difference between them. Before adjusting for era, he's basically the same size.

Quote:
Is Ted Lindsay "the standard" to aggression from a scoringline forward?
Yes.

Quote:
I'd probably put Gordie Howe on that pedestal, and after him guys like Lalonde, Messier and Neely. Size does matter.
In terms of physical strength, they definitely are ahead of Lindsay. In terms of sheer physical aggression, nobody is.

God, I can't believe I'm defending Lindsay yet again after being one of his biggest critics on the HOH board. I think Lindsay's raw offensive numbers overrate him somewhat for a variety of reasons (mostly team related), and I don't think Lindsay is more than merely a strong backchecker defensively - I seriously question whether he should be used in a shut down role.

But the man was a physical menance on the ice. Lindsay would get his ass handed to him by a heavyweight fighter, but short of that, he was as physical - and yes, dirty - as they come.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:30 AM
  #96
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
I agree that Markus and Cleghorn might be better suited on a ATD second line but I think they will do well on a line like this. They are also well suited for 1-3-1 tactics
Do you Quenneville would be willing and able to run Sandlin's system? (That is what your're planning on doing, right?)

Quote:
This is not a shutdown line but more of a two-way line. Lets say a defensive line with offensive responsibillities. Since as you mentioned, my team lacks a bit of offensive punch I found it suitable to build up secondary scoring to avoid being shutdown. Nystrom is good enough to play on a third line specially with these two.
I still think Nystrom's offense is pretty lacking if you want the line to score much.



Quote:
Erixon was a great shadower and will excel at it at this level. He's an all-time great at it. This will be our primary shutdown line tho the other liens can work defensively too.
How much ice time do you see the 4th line getting?


Quote:
Probert is versatile and could prolly fill any need in the bottom-6 incase of injuries. I will have to juggle a bit if someone gets injured.
Eh, versatility isn't what I think of when I think Probert. He's a good who has enough talent to take a shift on a 4th line here and not be blitzed, that's about it IMO.

Whatever, most GMs probably don't look at spares anyway.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-28-2013 at 07:21 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:30 AM
  #97
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
He's also barely bigger than Ted Lindsay after adjusting for the 20 year difference between them. Before adjusting for era, he's basically the same size.
Hmmm...I thought Morenz was bigger than he is listed. Yeah, I guess he probably ends up being about Crosby size (with probably an extra inch thrown in there) in modern terms. Not really all that big.

Quote:
In terms of physical strength, they definitely are ahead of Lindsay. In terms of sheer physical aggression, nobody is.

God, I can't believe I'm defending Lindsay yet again after being one of his biggest critics on the HOH board. I think Lindsay's raw offensive numbers overrate him somewhat for a variety of reasons (mostly team related), and I don't think Lindsay is more than merely a strong backchecker defensively - I seriously question whether he should be used in a shut down role.

But the man was a physical menance on the ice. Lindsay would get his ass handed to him by a heavyweight fighter, but short of that, he was as physical - and yes, dirty - as they come.
Well, you know more about Lindsay than I do. He's one of the few players I've neither owned nor researched much. I don't think I was ever in a position where drafting him would have been both realistic and sensible.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:44 AM
  #98
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Well, you know more about Lindsay than I do. He's one of the few players I've neither owned nor researched much. I don't think I was ever in a position where drafting him would have been both realistic and sensible.
Yeah, the end of the 1st round is a much better spot for Lindsay than where he used to go in the middle of the 1st round.

Funny thing Lindsay would do - he was pretty much known for basically attacking just about anyone, and was known as the toughest pound-for-pound guy in the league (he's often called the "toughest pound-for-pound guy ever" in profiles and by fans of the Original 6 era). And he was known for being able to beat up guys much larger than him. But still, he was smaller than average size, so a real heavyweight would kick his ass. But Lindsay wouldn't back down from anyone so one of his tricks was to take a shot at a heavyweight, then casually skate in Gordie Howe's direction at let Howe finish him off.

I dunno, maybe Lindsay's antics would be less effective against someone like Earl Seibert, who was supposedly the only man in the league Eddie Shore was afraid to fight.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 07:12 AM
  #99
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
You know as well as I do that scoring is not the end-all and be-all of what makes a defenseman.
That may be true, but when he scores more than double the next guy, it was a great offensive accomplishment. To just ignore seasons that he dominated offensively is rediculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Stuart was not an all-star in those first few seasons in a quite shallow league. I don't think that makes him any kind of star in those years by ATD standards. More likely, those were "developmental" seasons and Stuart was essentially a young and talented "offenseman", who with some experience grew into being an all-around player.
Who were the all-stars in 1901? I have never seen one listed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
The point here is that Stuart's full career was most likely not played at the level which eventually put him into the Hall of Fame, so the argument that he had a nine season career and thus should not be knocked for longevity is pretty shady. Conacher actually played ten more-or-less full, healthy seasons in the NHL, it's just that 3-4 of them were not that great, and so don't add much to his legacy. What I'm suggesting here is that Stuart's first few seasons appear to fall into the "not that great" category, and that this makes his actual peak of 4-5 seasons rather short. Anything less than all-star status in the leagues in which Stuart was playing doesn't interest me.
Even if his peak is 4-5 years, how is that abnormally low for his era, but Conacher's 5 year peak isn't low for his era?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 07:17 AM
  #100
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Hmmm...I thought Morenz was bigger than he is listed. Yeah, I guess he probably ends up being about Crosby size (with probably an extra inch thrown in there) in modern terms. Not really all that big.
Morenz was about average. 6' or 6'1" and 210 or 215 would be a fair adjustment.

Ted Lindsay was small, so under 5'10 or 5'11 and 190 or 195 is fair.

Dreakmur 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 11:52 PM.

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.