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.

Official All Time Draft #3 Thread.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-16-2005, 11:23 PM
  #1276
Frightened Inmate #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,385
vCash: 500
I think you rate your team a wee bit to high there BM, but that is to be expected to a certain extent. When I think of A+ I think there has to be something really special, where everything has to be pretty much perfect, and while your team is very very good, I don't think it is perfect. The main thing that I noticed is that your team for lack of a better word doesn't really have anyone that can shut down a player or a great defensive forward (Luce is close, but not really great in my view), and while they may not be defensively challenged, there is a huge difference between being good defensively and not being challenged defensively, and your teams forward ranks fits in more with the later than with the former at least in my view.

The other thing that I noticed was that your team really seems to at least in my view lack a physical presence. Not saying that players are small, because that wouldn't be the case, but rather there is just something lacking from a grinding forward aspect, especially on the third and fourth lines, where some grit is necessary. That is why I still think that Evil Sather's third line is better, they won't score as much, but they sure as hell will provide in other aspects.

Your team is most definantly one of the top three in the draft, but the A+/A-/A+ thing really seems to be a bit generous in my opinion at least.

By the way Gardiner could have someday been better than the starters, but then you have to remember that even Liut was great for a couple years, and I tend to value longevity as well as greatness.

Not insulting your team, as the players are all great selections, it is just I question whether they are all at an A+ level

Frightened Inmate #2 is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 12:10 AM
  #1277
Bergeron47
Registered User
 
Bergeron47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather
Here's my team from the roster thread:
New York Rangers:
Coach: Jacques Lemaire

Clark Gillies - Peter Forsberg - Sergei Makarov
Bill Barber - Adam Oates - Peter Bondra
Steve Shutt - Brent Sutter - Dirk Graham
Kevin Stevens - Joel Otto - Ken Hodge
Reg "Hooley" Smith

Denis Potvin - Borje Salming
Larry Robinson - Mark Howe
Gary Suter - Kevin Lowe
Ron Greschner

Billy Smith
Gerry Cheevers
John Vanbiesbrouck

I love my team, of course. Defense 1-7 is probably the strongest in the draft, mobile types who can rush the puck, and also play rock solid D. Forward lines are good, a playmaker on each line, a physical presence on each line, and a sniper on each line, 4th "grinding" line excluded, which might be the best "grind" line in the draft. Superlative shorthanded forwards. Forsberg-Makarov as deadly as any twosome IMO, with Gillies to make space and sit in front of the net(hey if he was good enough to do it with Trots and Bossy, thats good enough for me). The only time Sutter got to play with a real "sniper" was that one year with Bossy, and had 60 assists (and 42 goals), and paired with Shutt the infamous 60 goal LW should get some good offense out of my 3rd line, while being very good defensively. Only issue is there's nobody eye-popping that makes you go "wow", no Jagr, no Lafleur, no line to really key on, but that's might be a strength with a coach such as Lemaire. Goal is very solid, but again, not eye-popping, other than Smith's big game ability.

Defense: A
Forwards: B/B+
Goal: B+
I think I can give you a damn good run for your money. My #2 defenceman is better than your #1 defenceman..

Bergeron47 is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 12:14 AM
  #1278
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benton Fraser
I think you rate your team a wee bit to high there BM, but that is to be expected to a certain extent. When I think of A+ I think there has to be something really special, where everything has to be pretty much perfect, and while your team is very very good, I don't think it is perfect. The main thing that I noticed is that your team for lack of a better word doesn't really have anyone that can shut down a player or a great defensive forward (Luce is close, but not really great in my view), and while they may not be defensively challenged, there is a huge difference between being good defensively and not being challenged defensively, and your teams forward ranks fits in more with the later than with the former at least in my view.

The other thing that I noticed was that your team really seems to at least in my view lack a physical presence. Not saying that players are small, because that wouldn't be the case, but rather there is just something lacking from a grinding forward aspect, especially on the third and fourth lines, where some grit is necessary. That is why I still think that Evil Sather's third line is better, they won't score as much, but they sure as hell will provide in other aspects.

Your team is most definantly one of the top three in the draft, but the A+/A-/A+ thing really seems to be a bit generous in my opinion at least.

By the way Gardiner could have someday been better than the starters, but then you have to remember that even Liut was great for a couple years, and I tend to value longevity as well as greatness.

Not insulting your team, as the players are all great selections, it is just I question whether they are all at an A+ level

You gave your forwards an A+, and my team is much more physical than yours, and other than Provost and Mikita, I'd say better defensively as well. Dumart and Olmstead were used to shadow Gordie Howe. John Tonelli was 3rd in Selke voting in 85 (also 5th in 82, & 6th in 84), and St. Louis was 4th in 04. Craig Ramsay said he was TB's best defensive forward. He had 53 blocked shots the last time it was a public stat. Roberts and Iginla were/are regulars on the PK.

Gardiner was a 4 time all-star (3 1st & 1 2nd, the NHL had only named all-stars for 4 years) and a Stanley Cup winner, and was hailed as the greatest goalie ever by many at the time of his death. He's on THN's top 100 NHL players list at 76, ahead of Clint Benedict Ė 77, Tony Esposito - 79, Billy Smith - 80, Lorne Chabot - 84, & Johnny Bower - 87.

Since Kelly and Fetisov are better than anybody on your D, and you gave yourself a B+, I thought only giving myself an A- wasn't overly generous.

BM67 is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 12:14 AM
  #1279
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,409
vCash: 500
My assessment of my team:

Forwards:
- I have a dominant top line with Kharlamov, Dionne and Howe. They provide a good blend of talent and speed, while Howe provides toughness and good defense. Kharlamov and Dionne each led their respective leagues in scoring once, and Dionne was runner-up three times. Howe led the league in goals five times, assists three times and points six times. The three players combined for 21 first all-star selections in the NHL and Soviet National League in addition to 11 second all-star selections. Only Benton (and maybe Kruezer and Dr. Moses) has a more dominant top line.
- My second line also features a good combination of dominant scoring, toughness and defensive ability. Denneny was a dominant scorer, winning one Art Ross and finishing runner-up six times. Dye was an elite goal-scorer and led the league in goals three times and was runner-up three times. Boucher was one of the greatest playmakers in history and led the league in assists three times and was runner-up four times. Dye and Denneny were both strong, tough players while Boucher played excellent defense.
- My third line is an excellent combination of two-way players. Joe Primeau was an elite playmaker (led the league in assists three times) and provided excellent defense. He was a great penalty killer. Charlie Simmer was an excellent two-way player and was at times dominant offensively (included a league-leading 56 goals in 1980). Doug Bentley was a good offensive player (led the league in goals and assists twice each) who provided excellent speed and was always regarded as an elite defensive player. This is one of the best two-way lines in the draft.
- My fourth line is a good defensive combo. Bob Pulford was elected to the HOF on the basis of his excellent defense and forechecking. Craig Ramsay was one of the best defensive forwards of his time; he won 1 Selke and was runner-up three times. Steve Thomas is a tough, versatile forward. I feel comfortable sending these guys out to kill penalties and shut down other teams' top lines.
- My extra forward is the high-scoring but one-dimensional Gordie Drillon. I'd only play him on the powerplay.

Overall I feel my forwards are an excellent combination of offensive and defensive skill. My top two lines both features dominant scorers (with reasonable amounts of toughness and defensive skill). My third line features three excellent two-way players and my fourth line has three great defensive players. My forwards' biggest weakness is a lack of speed (relatively speaking). Rating: A.

Defense:
- My top pair of Coffey and Gadsby is an excellent, versatile combination. Coffey was the second best offensive defenseman ever and will provide excellent goal-scoring and playmaking from the blueline. Gadsby was a high-scoring blueliner too, but was extremely tough, physical and nasty to play against. Gadsby was an excellent defensive player. Coffey won 3 Norris' and was runner-up twice; Gadsby was runner-up for the Norris three times.
- My second pair of King Clancy and Ken Reardon is quite versatile. Clancy was an excellent offensive defensemen who possessed great speed, but was also fairly tough and good defensively. Reardon is tough, mean and great defensively. Clancy played most of his career before the Norris and all-star teams were awarded; Reardon was a 5-time all-star.
- Jim Thomson and Gus Mortson were defense partners for the Leafs in the 40's. They were best-known for their excellent defense and physical play, though they chipped in with some offense at times. Thomson was an all-star twice, Morston once.
- Sylvio Mantha is my #7 defenseman. He was renowned for excellent defense and chipped in offensively as well.

I like my defensemen. All of them (except Coffey) are tough players who were excellent defensively. Coffey and Clancy were dominant offensively. My biggest weakness is a lack of overwhelming size. Rating: A-

Goalies:

Esposito is a slightly below-average starting goalie. He has 3 Vezina's and 5 all-star appearances. Belfour, with two Vezina's, is a solid backup. Connell is a good third-string goalie.

I have three very good goalies but my weakness is the lack of a dominant starter, which many teams have. Rating: B+

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 12:31 AM
  #1280
Frightened Inmate #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 4,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67
You gave your forwards an A+, and my team is much more physical than yours, and other than Provost and Mikita, I'd say better defensively as well. Dumart and Olmstead were used to shadow Gordie Howe. John Tonelli was 3rd in Selke voting in 85 (also 5th in 82, & 6th in 84), and St. Louis was 4th in 04. Craig Ramsay said he was TB's best defensive forward. He had 53 blocked shots the last time it was a public stat. Roberts and Iginla were/are regulars on the PK.

Gardiner was a 4 time all-star (3 1st & 1 2nd, the NHL had only named all-stars for 4 years) and a Stanley Cup winner, and was hailed as the greatest goalie ever by many at the time of his death. He's on THN's top 100 NHL players list at 76, ahead of Clint Benedict Ė 77, Tony Esposito - 79, Billy Smith - 80, Lorne Chabot - 84, & Johnny Bower - 87.

Since Kelly and Fetisov are better than anybody on your D, and you gave yourself a B+, I thought only giving myself an A- wasn't overly generous.
Well with my forwards I think that there is also defense to be found in he likes of Nystrom, Abel, and Federko. Then there is one of the top 3 defensive forwards of all time (from what I have been able to read on Provost). I did say I liked your team, but you all but gave yourself A+/A+/A+, which while it may be true would take a team like no other which has been built in this draft, something I quite honestly don't think that this is.

And St. Louis I never really viewed him as a great defensive player, and he gets more credit than he deserves (in my opinion at least) because his +/- which is a direct result of his offensive instincts.

But I don't think your team is much more physical than mine. Really I am not saying either way, but I think you are discounting the physical nature of some of my team, especially when your physical presence is coming from a man with repeated back and neck problems and Iginla, who really isn't a player that you throw out there for a physical presence, not in the same way you would put a Nystrom on the ice at least.

I don't know if you are getting defensive or not (I hope not, and yes the pun was intented) as emotions are hard to determine over the internet. I am not saying you have a bad team, I think it is one of the best, if not the best team in the draft, but for the across the board A+'s it would be a team that would dominate like no other, and be the obvious choice for the top team in the draft, something I can't help but think this team is not.

Frightened Inmate #2 is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 01:26 AM
  #1281
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Some good discussion here. I only wonder how long it will take until the first league wide evaluation comes out ? I eagerly await that.

As for my team, I'm fairly pleased. I really went for chemistry this time around rather than just grabbing the best available at times.

Forewards: Obviously my top line should excell. Two all-around offensive dynamos in Lemieux and Nedomansky will obviously work out well together. I added Joliat as a guy who can finish and most importantly and some explosive speed to the group.

My second line I feel is as good as any. Lalonde provides a bonafide goal scoring presence who can work the circles and dazzle people while Perrault provides the playmaking. Obviously Neely brings slot dominance and an important physical presence.

My third line will be used in a defensive role. Draper and Laprade provide superb clean checking to shutdown othe team's big guys, while Taylor brings an excellent combination of scoring and defense.

My fourth line will be used as a two way unit and should be solid. Ellis provides two way play with consistent scoring ability. Bain should be a dominant athletic and strong center presence while helping out on the offensive end. Shriner also provides that two way game but should excell at putting in goals. If the line flaters it will be because of a lack of playmaking at which point Foytson, ym spare will be an excellent fit.

Defensively, I feel again that my team will do well.

Obviously Lidstrom is the total package, and I feel Boucher's game comliments that very well. He should allow Nik to use his offensive skills perhaps even a bit more than normal.

Muphy is one hell of an offensive D-man and should really make a superb PP man. I felt his defense is sometimes lacking so I paired him with Emile Bouchard. THe man is absolutely rock solid in his own end while also making great headman passes.

When I drafted Vasiliev, I knew I wanted to pair him with another Russian because my team is mostly North American, so having the big and physical Ragulin with him makes a perfect duo.

In net, I chose three guys who are all superb. Brimsek is my number one and he is one of the best ever, second tier I would say compared to Plante Hasek Roy Sawchuk etc... but he is as good as anyone else. Solid backups too.

Overall, it's a team good enough to compete with anyone, they can do it all.

KariyaIsGod* is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 08:58 AM
  #1282
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergeron47
I think I can give you a damn good run for your money. My #2 defenceman is better than your #1 defenceman..
1-2, you beat me, Harvey and Bourque > Potvin and Robinson, though its hard to compare greatness to greatness. We're talking 4 of the 5 best D-Men of all time, arguably.

3-7 though, I believe I have you, and that was my point. I'd take both Howe and Salming over Horner and Johnson. I don't see an instance where any of them match up offensively or speed wise with my guys, other than Lowe who had a different game, and I believe every one of them was every bit as good defensively as any of yours -- therefore I think my depth is better.

It's a good challenge though, and I believe if we were to poll it it would come out pretty even, some prefer top end and some prefer depth -- I happen to prefer depth.

Evil Sather is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 09:07 AM
  #1283
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,937
vCash: 500
I know we're all biased here too, but I'm having a bit of a problem with some of the self-rankings. I think I did a pretty good job being objective with my team, but any one of us (and some probably did) could run through hockeydb.com and look at Norris winners and take them, or legendsofhockey.net and pick a random HOF LW and cite how he had "exceptional endurance and great speed"... there's only so many times you can see that sort of thing before you get a little numb to it. The object for me at least wasn't to pick the guys with the most awards so I could crow about how many 1st all star team selections my guys had, but to make a TEAM... I think some of us forgot that.

There's more of an art to picking teams than that, there's styles, tempraments, shorthanded situations to think of, chemistry, COACHES my god there's at least one really glaring one off the top of my head that's gonna ruin that team... and off that top of my head the only unit I'd give an A+ to is Benton Frasers forwards. People have to realize its grading on an all time scale, not a random NHL schedule. All these teams would likely win the cup in a given year (except maybe one), but that's not the criteria we're using. Later on, I'm going to do a write up of each team, if others want to do so fine, but I think the debate will get pretty good once this sort of thing gets started.

Evil Sather is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 10:19 AM
  #1284
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benton Fraser
Well with my forwards I think that there is also defense to be found in he likes of Nystrom, Abel, and Federko. Then there is one of the top 3 defensive forwards of all time (from what I have been able to read on Provost). I did say I liked your team, but you all but gave yourself A+/A+/A+, which while it may be true would take a team like no other which has been built in this draft, something I quite honestly don't think that this is.

And St. Louis I never really viewed him as a great defensive player, and he gets more credit than he deserves (in my opinion at least) because his +/- which is a direct result of his offensive instincts.

But I don't think your team is much more physical than mine. Really I am not saying either way, but I think you are discounting the physical nature of some of my team, especially when your physical presence is coming from a man with repeated back and neck problems and Iginla, who really isn't a player that you throw out there for a physical presence, not in the same way you would put a Nystrom on the ice at least.

I don't know if you are getting defensive or not (I hope not, and yes the pun was intented) as emotions are hard to determine over the internet. I am not saying you have a bad team, I think it is one of the best, if not the best team in the draft, but for the across the board A+'s it would be a team that would dominate like no other, and be the obvious choice for the top team in the draft, something I can't help but think this team is not.

"More than any other guy, John symbolizes what this club is all about. He's not the least bit interested in personal achievements as long as the team succeeds. There isn't a better man in the NHL when it comes to going into the corner and getting possession of the puck." - Al Arbour on John Tonelli

Physical?

Hits: games/hits 2002->1998
Roberts 69/151, 82/206, 69/212, 77/260, 61/74 = 358/903
Redden 79/131, 78/149, 81/119, 72/83, 80/85 = 390/567
Iginla 82/98, 77/99, 77/133, 82/119, 70/64 = 388/513
Recchi 80/94, 69/76, 82/95, 71/97, 82/73 = 384/435
Niedermayer 76/64, 57/61, 71/105, 72/99, 81/58 = 357/387
St.Louis 53/32, 78/45, 56/47, 13/8, 0/0 = 200/132
Jagr 69/20, 81/25, 63/19, 81/27, 77/14 = 371/105
Bure 68/16, 82/33, 74/25, 11/2, 82/24 = 317/100
Larionov 70/12, 65/15, 79/22, 75/13, 69/12 = 358/74

I'll allow you Nystrom, but name one other player on your team as physical as Roberts, Tonelli, Olmstead or Petrov. St. Louis might be my least physical winger, but he'd be middle of the pack on your team. How you can look at your team and see a physical presence, and look at mine and not see one amazes me.

Defense?

Blocked Shots: games/blocked shots 2002->1999
Redden 79/108, 78/120, 81/103, 72/73 = 310/404
Niedermayer 76/64, 57/56, 71/82, 72/49 = 276/251
St.Louis 53/32, 78/53, 56/45, 13/4 = 200/135
Iginla 82/25, 77/34, 77/29, 82/25 = 318/113
Recchi 80/26, 69/18, 82/39, 71/24 = 302/107
Jagr 69/13, 81/27, 63/12, 81/23 = 294/75
Bure 68/32, 82/22, 74/12, 11/5 = 235/71
Roberts 69/9, 82/17, 69/27, 77/16 = 297/69
Larionov 70/16, 65/14, 79/18, 75/16 = 289/64

Give aways/take aways:
Bure 224/150
Iginla 201/148
Jagr 551/168
Larionov 275/126
Niedermayer 286/324
Recchi 255/139
Redden 380/125
Roberts 195/159
St. Louis 120/119

St. Louis, Iginla, Roberts and Tonelli all got more PK time than Nystrom, Federko or Jagr.


Last edited by BM67: 05-17-2005 at 10:35 AM.
BM67 is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 12:03 PM
  #1285
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather
I know we're all biased here too, but I'm having a bit of a problem with some of the self-rankings. I think I did a pretty good job being objective with my team, but any one of us (and some probably did) could run through hockeydb.com and look at Norris winners and take them, or legendsofhockey.net and pick a random HOF LW and cite how he had "exceptional endurance and great speed"... there's only so many times you can see that sort of thing before you get a little numb to it. The object for me at least wasn't to pick the guys with the most awards so I could crow about how many 1st all star team selections my guys had, but to make a TEAM... I think some of us forgot that.

There's more of an art to picking teams than that, there's styles, tempraments, shorthanded situations to think of, chemistry, COACHES my god there's at least one really glaring one off the top of my head that's gonna ruin that team... and off that top of my head the only unit I'd give an A+ to is Benton Frasers forwards. People have to realize its grading on an all time scale, not a random NHL schedule. All these teams would likely win the cup in a given year (except maybe one), but that's not the criteria we're using. Later on, I'm going to do a write up of each team, if others want to do so fine, but I think the debate will get pretty good once this sort of thing gets started.
Yeah, picking Scotty Bowman as a coach was a horrifyingly bad choice...

KariyaIsGod* is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 12:36 PM
  #1286
Spitfire11
Registered User
 
Spitfire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benton Fraser
He was a winner on what was likely the best team assembled in the past 15 - 20 years.
The 97-98 Wings team was hardly the best of the past 15 years. Definitely behind the 2002 Wings and 2001 Avs. Probably the 97 team too (no Konstantinov).

Spitfire11 is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 12:56 PM
  #1287
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMoses
Yeah, picking Scotty Bowman as a coach was a horrifyingly bad choice...
Bluebleeder picked him... since when did I talk about Bluebleeder? I was speaking in general the whole time, and there's one coach that just sticks out at me like a sore thumb... and hint hint, it's not Gretzky, either. Though that's a bad choice, IMO.

Evil Sather is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 02:52 PM
  #1288
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather
Bluebleeder picked him... since when did I talk about Bluebleeder? I was speaking in general the whole time, and there's one coach that just sticks out at me like a sore thumb... and hint hint, it's not Gretzky, either. Though that's a bad choice, IMO.
Haha, I know. I was simply making a funny. I'm going to have to look at the coach's list though just to see if I can figure out who you are talking about since you say it's not Wayne...

Interesting.

KariyaIsGod* is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 03:09 PM
  #1289
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
My assessment of my team:

Forwards:
- I have a dominant top line with Kharlamov, Dionne and Howe. They provide a good blend of talent and speed, while Howe provides toughness and good defense. Kharlamov and Dionne each led their respective leagues in scoring once, and Dionne was runner-up three times. Howe led the league in goals five times, assists three times and points six times. The three players combined for 21 first all-star selections in the NHL and Soviet National League in addition to 11 second all-star selections. Only Benton (and maybe Kruezer and Dr. Moses) has a more dominant top line.
I think Bluebleeder should be in on that debate as well though, Mahovlich-Esposito-Bossy is a RIDICULOUS scoring line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
- My second line also features a good combination of dominant scoring, toughness and defensive ability. Denneny was a dominant scorer, winning one Art Ross and finishing runner-up six times. Dye was an elite goal-scorer and led the league in goals three times and was runner-up three times. Boucher was one of the greatest playmakers in history and led the league in assists three times and was runner-up four times. Dye and Denneny were both strong, tough players while Boucher played excellent defense.
You definetaly have one of the top 2nd lines, I may like old timers too much, but that line is beautiful.

kruezer is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 03:11 PM
  #1290
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather
Bluebleeder picked him... since when did I talk about Bluebleeder? I was speaking in general the whole time, and there's one coach that just sticks out at me like a sore thumb... and hint hint, it's not Gretzky, either. Though that's a bad choice, IMO.
I don't know if this is the one, but the worst coaching pick was Pat Quinn IMO, VI's team was just crying out for Lemaire to coach it, and Quinn is the exactly opposite kind of coach.

kruezer is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 03:29 PM
  #1291
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,937
vCash: 500
I think Quinn has a decent enough resume not to be called horrendous... and he likes tough abrasive guys, so he'd like the team well enough and probably coach it well enough... no, I'm talking about...

Fred Shero

Are you KIDDING me? The Broadstreet Bullies Fred Shero? The Fred Shero who according to Phil Esposito's book was constantly drunk and had one offensive play, and that was to throw it into the corner and dig it out? The Fred Shero who while he could install a good defensive system, liked to send his goons against the other teams creampuffs?

HE is going to be coaching those nasty, overly physical brutes Wayne Gretzky, Mike Gartner, Bernie Nichols, and Ziggy Palffy? There would probably a smoldering pile of burnt jello sitting where Nichols was at the end of a series. Half the team would quit. If there was ever a coach NOT for monster_bertuzzi's team, it's Fred bloody Shero. Glen Sather would have been a great pick, Lester Patrick would have been good, hell Ron Low would be a better fit than Fred Shero. Ye gods.

Evil Sather is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 05:30 PM
  #1292
#66
Registered User
 
#66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 10,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
I think Bluebleeder should be in on that debate as well though, Mahovlich-Esposito-Bossy is a RIDICULOUS scoring line.



You definetaly have one of the top 2nd lines, I may like old timers too much, but that line is beautiful.
On paper but Mahovlich scored off of rushes, Espo needed someone to do his corner work and Bossy needs a give and go center. Switching his wings with his second line would work out better IMO.

#66 is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 05:56 PM
  #1293
Bergeron47
Registered User
 
Bergeron47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,092
vCash: 500
Ottawa Silver Seven


Head Coach: Glen Sather
(Regular Season: 464-268-110) (Playoffs: 89-37-1)

#9 Johnny Bucyk - #10 Ron Francis - #5 Bernie 'Boom Boom' Geoffrion
#25 Dave Andreychuk - #16 Pat LaFontaine - #89 Alexander Mogilny
#25 Jacques Lemaire - #14 Dave Keon - #16 Rick Middleton
#3 Syd Howe - #19 Ken Linseman - #15 John MacLean
#?? Jack Darragh

#77 Raymond Bourque - #2 'Red' Horner
#2 Doug Harvey - #6 Tom Johnson
#4 'Babe' Siebert - #2 Carl Brewer
#?? Arthur Coulter

#30 Martin Brodeur
#?? Lorne Chabot
#1 Harry Lumley

Glen Sather may be the most qualified coach to be running such a team filled with a star-studded roster. Sather has been known to handle such stars as Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messer, Paul Coffey, & Grant Fuhr with perfection.

The Goaltending trio may not have the best goalies in the world (Martin Brodeur will be argued to be after retiring), but all 3 goalies can perform as stars when needed. The Silver Seven is the only team in the draft to have all 3 goalies in the top 10 all-time in shutouts and have all won atleast one Vezina Trophy.

The defence squad is arguably the top of the draft, as not even Evil Sather can match our 13 Norris trophies. With Raymond Bourque and Doug Harvey (easily the #2 and 3 defencemen of all time) on seperate pairings, the defence will be rock solid. Tom Johnson has experience playing with Doug Harvey on the Canadiens dynasty, and Red Horner is just the sort of hard nosed defenceman that Bourque needs beside him.

The Silver Seven's forwards may be the biggest weakness on the team, depending how you look at it. Dave Keon, Jacques Lemaire & Rick Middleton may be a top 3-5 defensive line in the draft, which will shut down any line at any given time, and pop in some goals in the meantime. The first line of Bucyk-Lafontaine-Geoffrion have all scored 40+ goals in a single season, as well as 45+ assists (95 in Lafontaine's case). The second line includes one of the greatest passers of all time (Ron Francis), and one of the greatest pure goal scorers of all time (Alexander Mogilny). That 1-2 punch will be deadly against any line. And with Ken Linseman doin his thang on the 4th line, powerplays will be abundant on this team.


Last edited by Bergeron47: 05-22-2005 at 12:26 PM.
Bergeron47 is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 06:05 PM
  #1294
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by #66
On paper but Mahovlich scored off of rushes, Espo needed someone to do his corner work and Bossy needs a give and go center. Switching his wings with his second line would work out better IMO.
Thats definetaly a reasonable idea, getting a puck carrier on that line would be dynamite, though you could argue Mahovlich would be the guy and he would proceed to pick up more assists than normal.

kruezer is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 08:32 PM
  #1295
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,409
vCash: 500
I've ranked all the teams based on their forwards. Maybe this will spark some interesting debate, maybe this will make half of you hate me:

1. Benton Fraser: Top line is ridiculously good, itís definitely the best top line in the draft. Very good second line, a lot of speed and talent. Good two-way third line. The fourth line is probably a bit too offense-oriented. A

2. BM67: Excellent collection of forwards. Three lethal goal-scorers down the right wing, three strong two-way centers (plus Taylor), and more good two-way scorers on the left-wing. Both checking lines are very strong. Only complaint is that the top line probably isnít as strong offensively as some of the others. A.

3. Blue Bleeder: The top two lines are possibly the best in the draft, all six forwards were dominant offensive talents. Bottom two lines good two-way units; the third line is especially good. A.

4. Kruezer: Dominant top line (second only to Benton Fraserís). All three were dominant scorers, excellent defensively and two were tough, physical players. I think itís funny that you have both Martin and Kerr on your second lineóthey were virtually identical to Neely but nobody ever demands that they must be inducted in the Hall of Fame (but I digress). Second line is good, third line is solid. Arguably the best fourth line in the draft. A-.

5. VanIslander: On the one hand, this team has undoubtedly the best set of centers with Yzerman, Messier, Clarke and Carbonneau. Most of your forwards are strong defensively, have a solid physical presence and can throw opponents off their game (especially your second line, I canít imagine what it would be like to face Tikkanen and Lemieux at the same time!). In fact, this team probably has the best defensive forwards and is one of the most physical units as well. On the other hand, aside from your top three centers (and Ciccarelli for the powerplay), you lack an elite scoring touch. No Art Ross winners on the team, and none of your wingers were ever dominant scorers. A-

6. Dr Moses: Excellent top line, very dangerous offense and a good physical presence. Strong second line as well, also a good combination of scoring and toughness. Good defensive third line, solid fourth line as well. A-

7. Spitfire: Excellent top line, people forget how dominant Goulet was. Good offensive second line. Excellent third line. All were very good scorers and excellent defensively. Strange fourth line, not sure what itís role would be. A-.

8. Bergeron47: Top line is very good. Best third line in the draftóthe opposition will not score when Lemaire, Keon and Middleton are out there. Second line has a solid two-way presence but not enough offensive dominance (you should switch Andreychuk and Howe). Pretty good fourth line. A bit lacking in overall scoring (only one Art Ross winner on entire team, only one assists leader). Solid all around. B+.

9. #66: Very good top line. It would be exciting to watch: a lot of speed, skill, creativity and vision. Second line is an interesting combination of styles but Iím not convinced that Tkachuk (or even Selanne) belong on a second line in an all-time draft. Moore should be there instead of Tkachuk. Bottom six forwards are a good defensive unit. Gare was a good pick. B+.

10. Monster Bertuzzi: Top two lines are solid, but aside from Gretzky there isnít another Art Ross winner on the team. Good third line, fourth line is solid but Palffy has no place on it. B+.

11. Evil Sather: I donít think Gillies should be a #1 LW in an all-time draft, but Forsberg/Makarov is an excellent pairing. Iíd switch Shutt and Barber: Shutt needs a good playmaker to maximize his value and heíd be playing with Oates on the second line while Barber has the two-way game thatís well-suited for a third liner. Third line is solid, fourth line is decent. B.

12. Murphy2: Very good top line. Second line is solid, but not dominant. Excellent third line. Fourth line is solid, but I wouldnít play Nilsson on it. Overall, thereís good two-way players on the roster but only one Art Ross winner on the team. B.

13. Leaf Lander: Two solid scoring lines. I wouldnít call Sittler an elite playmaker (aside from one huge season he was never even in the top 10 in assists), so I wonder if he would be able to get the puck to both Hull and Leclair-- they certainly won't pass the puck to each other. Solid second line. Bottom six forwards arenít good enough defensively. B-

14. John Flyers Fan: I didnít see your roster listed anywhere so I donít know what your line comboís will be. Lindsay and Morenz would be the start of an excellent top line while Shanahan and Lindros would be an excellent physical second line. Not sure of exactly what the rest of your forward lines would look like, but they appear to be a decent combo of two-way players. B-

I have decided it would not be fair for me to rate my own top team along with all the others.

Comments? Observations? Death threats?

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 09:26 PM
  #1296
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,937
vCash: 500
I've changed my lines, having Barber on the top, Shutt on the 2nd, and Gillies on the 3rd. That change things in your opinion?

Evil Sather is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 09:35 PM
  #1297
Murphy
Registered User
 
Murphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
12. Murphy2: Very good top line. Second line is solid, but not dominant. Excellent third line. Fourth line is solid, but I wouldnít play Nilsson on it. Overall, thereís good two-way players on the roster but only one Art Ross winner on the team. B.
OK, Outsider, not exactly a death threat but 12th!!! Freakin 12th!!!

There may only be 1 Hart trophy winner but there's the USSR equivelent in Maltsev. That's not really my arguement. My arguement is that I have 4 different Conn Smythe winners among my forwards. I think Conn Smythe winners should carry at least as much or moreso weight than Hart winners. After all being the best among the best during playoffs, when it really matters shows what kind of player you are.

I think I was able to cobble together a pretty damn good 4th line, possibly the best of the draft. I know Kent Nilsson only played when inspired, but when he was inspired he could set up plays, pass and control the puck with the best of them. To draft him with the 290th pick was a major coup. To have him dishing it off to major league shots like Lanny & Wendel would provide excellent support scoring from the fourth line. I think he's a good fit there.

Kent Nilsson won in every league he played in and played inspired during the playoffs. With that in mind I drafted other players that had a proven ability to raise their game when it mattered most. So with that I dispute your B and think it should be elevated all the way up to a B+..........

That's just my opinion of course and your opinions and efforts on grading everyones teams is vey much appreciated Outsider.........

Murphy is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 10:25 PM
  #1298
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,409
vCash: 500
Evil Sather: Those changes would bump you up a spot or two. My problem wasn't with your players, it was mainly with your line combo's.

Barber was a good goal-scorer and played great defense, so he would really benefit from playing alongside Forsberg. Shutt is much more valuable on the second line since he gets a playmaker of Oates' calibre. Playing Gillies with Sutter and Graham gives you a great third line.


Murphy:

No arguments about the Conn Smyhte winner's; I already said that your first and third lines were both excellent.

I don't think the fourth line is good enough in terms of defense. Nilsson's a great passer and that line will score more than most of the other fourth lines, but none of them were great defensive players (though both wingers of course were great checkers). I suppose that when you play in front of Hasek you have more margin for error but I do think defense should be the primary concern of the fourth line.

I think I underestimated your team's playoff performances--several of the players were great playoff performers. I didn't notice all the Conn Smythe winners at first.

In any case, you have probably the best goaltending in the draft and good defense, so a low ranking for forwards won't hurt your team that much (and I know you took over of the team in the middle which makes it hard for you... I'm in the same boat). I'll probably post defensemen and goalie rankings in a few days, your team will do well there.

Hockey Outsider is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 10:58 PM
  #1299
Murphy
Registered User
 
Murphy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
In any case, you have probably the best goaltending in the draft and good defense, so a low ranking for forwards won't hurt your team that much (and I know you took over of the team in the middle which makes it hard for you... I'm in the same boat). I'll probably post defensemen and goalie rankings in a few days, your team will do well there.
Yaa but................Oh, alright then..........................

For the record though. I know the general conscenses seems to be a strong defensive 4th line seems to be the way to assemble a team. I disagree with this way of thinking and think the third line should be primarily responsible for defensive checking. The fourth line I think is for developing and support scoring with all lines able to play two way hockey. Just my two cents.......

I am kind of happy though how I was able to assemble a decent defense corps when I took over monkey's team. At the time his defense was pretty weak, although I applaud his pick of JC Tremblay.

I wonder what monkey thinks when he sees how his team ended up. With his propensity to pick Russians, Benton's old picks and oldtimers I have a feeling he wouldn't like this team much.....

Murphy is offline  
Old
05-17-2005, 11:50 PM
  #1300
VanIslander
Hope for better 2015
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
5. VanIslander: On the one hand, this team has undoubtedly the best set of centers with Yzerman, Messier, Clarke and Carbonneau. Most of your forwards are strong defensively, have a solid physical presence and can throw opponents off their game (especially your second line, I canít imagine what it would be like to face Tikkanen and Lemieux at the same time!). In fact, this team probably has the best defensive forwards and is one of the most physical units as well. On the other hand, aside from your top three centers (and Ciccarelli for the powerplay), you lack an elite scoring touch. No Art Ross winners on the team, and none of your wingers were ever dominant scorers. A-
Comments? Observations?
Victoria couldn't care less about Art Ross trophies. The Aristocrats are all about the Conn Smythe, built for the playoffs not the regular season, to win the Stanley Cup not scoring titles.

There are several dominant wingers on the team in terms of postseason performance, playoff warriors, when it matters most, guys who thrive in the big games and crank their play up a notch or two or three, repeatedly throughout their career.

Four very dominant scoring wingers in the postseason are on the Aristocrats:

4. Dino Ciccarelli

14 goals, 21 points in 19 games in his rookie postseason to lead the North Stars on its Cup run, one of the most dominant rookie playoffs I've ever seen. He followed that up with several remarkable playoffs, ending his career with 73 goals and 118 points in 141 playoff games. That's dominant. He will park himself in the crease, take the worst abuse imaginable and score. That's Dino.

3. Claude Lemieux

10 goals and 16 points in 20 playoff games as part of the reason the Canadiens won the Cup in 1986, his rookie postseason. He followed that up with a Conn Smythe later and with the third most playoff GWGs in history with 19 ! He is Mr. Clutch in the playoffs. He has had 158 points in 233 playoff games. That's dominant.

2. Esa Tikkanen

10 goals and 27 points in 19 playoff games in '88 (and 72 well-deserved PIM).
13 goals and 24 points in 22 playoff goals in '90 (was a Conn Smythe candidate).
12 goals and 20 points in 18 playoff games in '91.

Yes, he did this, and other postseasons as an Oiler with Messier. But Messier is also his linemate on the Aristocrats, so there's no reason to expect less.
He was also an elite scoring force in smaller stints elsewhere: 3 goals and 5 points in 6 games as a Canuck (plus GWG); 9 goals and 12 points in 15 games as a Ranger (three GWGs in one series!!); only 6 points in 22 games as a Capital but when the coach was asked what factor most contributed to his team's run to the Stanley Cup Finals the media expected him to mention goaltending (which was much hyped) but instead he chose to say Esa lead the team in the dressing room and on the ice, playing in all key situations and setting the tone for the team.
72 goals and 132 points in 186 playoff games.

Tikkanen is one of the most dominant wingers I've ever seen in the postseason. In scoring alone, plus plus plus his play without the puck.

1. Brian Propp

15 points in 19 playoff games in his rookie postseason in Philly.
12 points in 12 games in his sophomore postseason.
8 goals and 18 points in 19 games in the '85 playoff run.
12 goals and 28 points in 26 games in the -87 Cup run.
13 points in 20 games as a Bruin in their '90 playoff run.
21 points in 21 games in the North Stars '91 Cup run.
64 goals and 148 points in 160 playoff games career!!
And he never got to play with an Yzerman-quality centre for most of his career. On Poulin's line the first responsibility was shutting down the opposition!

The playoffs are all that matter. That's what this G.M. thinks, and it's what many great hockey players have thought throughout the ages.

That's FOUR dominant wingers!!

Aside: The other wingers on the Aristocrats haven't had career-long dominant postseasons offensively, but they have had some great playoffs: Terry O'Reilly was the most physical forward in the league yet managed to score nearly a point a game in four long playoff runs in Boston and ended up with 67 points in 108 playoff games. Bob Gainey was only a dominant scorer in one postseason: 6 goals and 16 points in 16 playoff games in '79 but he was dominant in other ways, just as Dino and Esa were! These were not just scorers. They each excelled in other areas of the game. Jere Lehtinen scored 10 goals in Dallas' Cup-winning run and was dominant also defensively.

* The Aristocrats are built for the playoffs and each line has been crafted for chemistry.

Yzerman and Ciccarelli play well together, with complimentary styles, while Propp never had a Stevie Y to dance with.

Tikkanen-Messier are golden together and Lemieux on that line just assures that the opposition's top line will be disrupted and scored on from the left, centre and right in the playoffs.

Gainey-Clarke-Lehtinen are unworldly defensively and they'd score a lot of goals too.

Carbonneau headlines a fourth line with one of the toughest talented right wingers in O'Reilly in NHL history with another of the kind as the extra forward in Tiger Williams, plus the best player in the Holik family, Jiri the two-way force who is Top10 in world championships scoring all time due to a long healthy career.

In fact, every skater on the Aristocrats has had a long, healthy career and are supremely hard workers, I mean, elite level effort. These guys don't take nights off and don't need to be closely managed by an overbearing coach. Gainey was a playing coach and guys like Clarke and Messier took active roles during a game. Quinn is exacly what this G.M. believed was needed, a guy who would have competent assistant coaches but wouldn't try to overcoach players who already are as hard working as they come! Soon after both Gainey and O'Reilly retired they each coached teams to the finals, reflecting the coaching skills they began as players.

This G.M. sincerely believes the Aristocrats are, as a group, the healthiest, hardest-working, most defensively skilled set of playoff warriors - and it's by design.

VanIslander is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:28 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.