Re: Horcoff - I'm trying to think of a good Flyers comparison off-hand and it's not really coming to me. At his peak, he was a passable second line center really. He never really had a ton of skill, but he was a better passer than his skillset led on (took a lot from Adam Oates in their brief time together). He was always very good defensively and has been the captain. Now, he's overpaid and injuries have ravaged him. He's probably Oilers fans least favorite player. He's developed into more of a role player and is grinding it out, but you just...hmm...you just kind of expect more from him for some reason...I don't know how to describe it really. I'm trying to think of a division-rival of yours (well, ours, I'm a Penguins fan)...ugh, kind of like Brian Boyle, but he doesn't really hit anyone, but he has that kind of skillset (or lack thereof). Boyle had to be coached to hit people (and even now, he doesn't really kill anyone despite being 8'15")...maybe like Boyle from 2 years ago best describes Horcoff. He belongs, but, you think there's more to him and then you knock him down a peg and strangely the play quality doesn't improve it just finds a new way to stagnate...ugh, that's the best I can do...Horcoff is better offensively than Boyle ever was and has way better vision, which isn't saying a ton...
Hmm, actually you guys have Talbot now...how about like Talbot, but just neuter him...(and pay him like $5.5 million or whatever)...that's how Horcoff kind of is now...again, Horcoff was better offensively than Talbot ever was at his peak too...
Re: Gratton - let's see if I can actually talk this one out...this is one of the prototypical "Lindros picks" - there were essentially two kinds of draft busts from 1991-2004: "next Lindros", "guy to stop 'next Lindros'" but they generally all had a fatal flaw, referring now just to the topic at hand "next Lindros", they either couldn't skate, or they didn't have hands, or they didn't have determination, or they didn't have hockey sense...something...something was wrong, because we never really did get that "next Lindros" ...but he changed the game, that's one of my biggest reasons for having Lindros in the HHOF - he changed drafting for a decade, huge impact.
Anyway, for Gratton he was a combination of a lot of those fatal flaws but managed to hang around playing the potential card well into his 20's, if not early 30's...Gratton couldn't stop, first of all...he couldn't stop or turn that body...he could loop around aimlessly, he could do fly-by's all day, but I don't think he could stop...he had decent straight ahead speed, and his skating stride isn't really that bad I don't think, but he just still didn't skate that well...he couldn't power through anything, he couldn't stop on a dime, hell, he couldn't stop in front of a bank I don't think...
It didn't appear his head was in it all the time either...he'd come back defensively, but he wouldn't have anyone really...he'd just kind of come back because that's what he's supposed to do, he didn't really know why or what he was supposed to do, but he did it...this game awareness and anticipation is probably best quantified in his assist totals...for a natural center, you get the impression that he just didn't see the ice that well...hockey sense is a two-way street, if you see it offensively, you can see it defensively, it's just a matter of effort...Gratton didn't really have that effort...he never really wanted to improve...so when he wanted offense, he just put his head down and tried to make it work himself...or he was in front on the power play and he would just bang'em home...
Additionally, I can't speak for major junior hockey in the early 90's, but he grew up in the Kingston system and they have a very poor reputation for player development and as long as I can remember they've been kind of fast and loose with their ethics, standards and all that...so it makes sense that Gratton had his biggest offensive forays when he could do whatever he wanted...Kingston (against kids half-a-foot shorter than him, no less) and the expansion Lightning - which was a circus...
When it got to serious time on serious teams, it didn't last very long for Gratton. Look at all the hoopla Philadelphia went through to acquire him...the offer sheet, the picks, the trade, a first liner in Renberg, all that...5 year deal as I recall...and then in 100 games, it's over...he's out...handed him right back...decided that Mikael Renberg was better for them...
He just didn't want to get better, so he didn't. When things got tough, he just didn't want to take that extra step. Sure, he fought, he was an amazing faceoff taker, and all that...but outside of the unsustainably high shooting percentage year in the 2001 playoffs for Buffalo (a team that was upset by the cinderella Penguins), his playoff totals are: 27 games, 2 goals, 3 assists, -6. That's a 1000 games as an NHLer and it just never really registered with him. Look at his playoff ice time - even when the average amount of time a game lasts exceeds 60 minutes in the playoffs, his ice time still went down...
He was really good in front of the net on the power play (no skating, no thinking) and he was really good at faceoffs (no skating, no thinking) and he was really big...other than that, his presence on the ice wasn't felt that much really...in fact, if you think about it, the "potential card" is still being played to this day, in this draft...
My advice for the lineup would be...have Gratton take faceoffs, but move him to the wing...you have three lefties on a grind line, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't...because someone is at a disadvantage when it comes to board battles, someone will be stuck on their backhand...so your best bet is to put the stupidest player in the stupidest spot so you just kind of get all the stupidity out in one shot...Horcoff can't play the right side, his game doesn't really allow for it, and he's the better playmaker, so he probably shouldn't be on his off-wing trying to pass like that...Gratton is a scorer, so he can play his off-wing and get a couple more goals but be less effective along the boards...but he has a big enough body where he can tie up until help arrives, so what you lose in backhandedness can be made up in physicality if you program him correctly...but, that's just how I would approach given the situation, certainly don't want to impose...
that was awesome... about 8.5 times as long as I hoped for. Great read, Mike. It's a lot of what I thought, and more.
I think there's a time where what he actually accomplished on-ice would make him a good pick. I don't think now is the time. That said, there's not a huge, team-killing issue when you take a guy 1450th that should be taken 1750th for your 4th line...
that was awesome... about 8.5 times as long as I hoped for.
If I had a nickel...
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
Great read, Mike. It's a lot of what I thought, and more.
I think there's a time where what he actually accomplished on-ice would make him a good pick. I don't think now is the time. That said, there's not a huge, team-killing issue when you take a guy 1450th that should be taken 1750th for your 4th line...
Yeah, I mean, he can't kill a team. He might not be the best pick, but he's no more or less deserving to be in this draft than a couple hundred others I think...there's a lot of wiggle room when you get down here, as you already know...
.568 adjusted PPG over 1,092 career games, a lot of grit, size, great on faceoffs, and little defensive ability and Gratton isn't a deserving of being on a 4th line at this level? I really disagree. How many 4th liners in this are over .5 adjusted PPG, let alone over 1,000 games while being a gritty player?
.568 adjusted PPG over 1,092 career games, a lot of grit, size, great on faceoffs, and little defensive ability and Gratton isn't a deserving of being on a 4th line at this level? I really disagree. How many 4th liners in this are over .5 adjusted PPG, let alone over 1,000 games while being a gritty player?
I mean, he belongs sure...it's just that no one would go, "OMG, where's Chris Gratton" if he wasn't picked. And if he was picked in the AA draft, no one would anoint him the best player in the draft either. He's here and ubiquitous and it's fine. A competent, warm body. The less expected from him, the better the results look.
After looking at their TOI finishes, I was very surprised at Hedican's ranks. He was a #1 defenseman overall and at ES 3 and 5 times respectively. Some of those 1sts were by very slim margins on the Hurricanes in the mid-2000s, but it says something that he was the most trusted member of highly successful teams. He's probably the worst offensively of the four top pairing defensemen, but I think he's the best defenseman on either first pairing.
Next, I think are both Eisbaren defensemen. Manery was a heavily relied upon defenseman, but played mostly on mediocre teams in Atlanta and LA. Smith on the other hand was fairly well relied upon and averaged a good amount of TOI each game, but played behind some great defensemen, and so his TOI finishes aren't that impressive. He was a top 4 defenseman on some very good teams. Both guys can chip in a little bit of offense, with Manery getting a bit of an edge. Neither is an offensive dynamo, but they're not lost offensively.
That leaves Kurvers, and I think he's the worst of the four overall. Offensively, he is by far the best with four seasons of top 23 in scoring among defensemen. But, he was top-2 in ES TOI among defensemen just once, and the teams he played for weren't all that great either. He's a very solid compliment to Hedican though.
Overall, I would give the advantage in first pairings to Macon. Hedican appears to be the best of the group, and while Kurvers may be the weakest, his skills compliment Hedican's very well, and they should be a very effective pairing.
Matvichuk and Robidas is going to be a shutdown pair that doesn't provide much in the offensive zone. Matvichuk was the #3 on a very good defensively Dallas team in the late 90s and early 2000s. Robidas recently started getting big minutes for the Stars and has been their #1, but they've been average to below average in that time. I think it's safe to say the Eisbaren pairing is going to be better offensively, with Lamoureux and Levinsky both being top 10 in defenseman scoring in their career. But in Levinsky's LOH and Pelletier profile, he was described as a stay at home defenseman. Lamoureux was described as being good offensively, and physical and tough in his own zone.
In terms of AS voting, Lamoureux placed 6th, 8th, and 12th, with the last two being during war years, and the 6th being right after the war. Levinsky received one vote during his career. Neither Robidas or Matvichuk have received any votes for AS teams or Norris voting. The gap between the pairs offensively is a definite advantage to Eisbaren. Defensively, it's hard to call which pairing is better. Either way, I don't think the gap defensively(if there is one) is larger than the gap offensively between the two. So, I'd say the Eisbaren pairing is a bit better.
Lamoureux(who won 2 cups) led a cup-winning team in points among defenseman, and was probably the #3 defenseman on the 43-44 team out of 4 regular defensemen, and was 12th in total AS voting(3rd among teammates behind Harmon and Bouchard). In 45-46 he was 6th in AS voting, 3rd among his teammates behind Reardon and Bouchard. In 31-31, Levinsky was one of 3 regular defensemen on a Leafs team that won the cup with Clancy and Horner. In 37-38 when he was on the Blackhawk team that won the cup, and he was probably the 2nd or 3rd best defenseman on that team. He is clearly worse than Seibert, is close to Art Weibe, and better than Roger Jenkins, Bill MacKenzie, and Virgin Johnson.
Overall, I think Levinsky and Lamoureux were more relied upon by good teams than Macon's pairing, making my 2nd pairing better.
