__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
I'm torn on Steve Smith on the PP. If he's next to a guy that's a good pointman, I think he can work but I'm not sure Hartsburg is good enough. Smith basically had 4 good seasons offensively, and then barely did anything besides that. Hartsburg was great when he was on the ice, but he rarely played a full season. Together as a second unit, I guess they work.
The first PP is good, the second unit is lacking punch and a finisher. Brent Sutter shouldn't be on a PP in the ATD, he broke 100 points once when he got a chance to play with Bossy, and never broke 70 points otherwise, despite receiving what looks like 2nd unit PP time on the Islanders. Prentice can work as the clearly 3rd best offensive member of a PP to do the dirty work, but him and Sutter on the same unit are not good. You've got Gilbert, who is a great passer from the wing, and Prentice/Sutter aren't good enough to capitalize on that.
That way, you've got two good passers in Gilbert and Clarke to feed Denneny, and your 2nd unit is way more potent with the heavy assist Oates passing to the heavy goal Bondra. Horner was top 9 in points among defensemen 6 times, he and Smith will be pretty weak as PP pointmen, but it can still work.
Barry will absorb a lot and still produce and was an iron man but I don't see those lines dishing much out.
Which is also ok as long as your team doesn't end up with its tail between its legs from the abuse and is able to sting the opposition on the powerplay.
Barry will absorb a lot and still produce and was an iron man but I don't see those lines dishing much out.
Which is also ok as long as your team doesn't end up with its tail between its legs from the abuse and is able to sting the opposition on the powerplay.
I do have Chara who will be patrolling the ice for nearly half the game, but yeah - I agree.
Forgot that he was on a first line. Yeah, he's comparable to Gare in terms of overall offense, though he's obviously a much better defensive player.
With the discussions on the percentage method being thrown around lately, I figured I would apply it to the Walker/Gare comparison. For Gare, I used the #2 every time. For Walker I used the #2 from my reconstructed points project every time. (of his top 6 seasons, the #2 was the leading scorer was in his own league 3 times, and was from the other league 3 times)
Jack Walker's 6 best seasons = 357
Danny Gare's 6 best seasons = 353
I'm worried about the toughness of my top 2 scoring lines:
Mahovlich-Keats-Maltsev
Damphousse-Barry-Darragh
There is a big body presence on each line, but not a lot of pugnation. My question is, how valued is toughness around here? Should I load up on it 4th line and bottom pair D?
Duke Keats was one of the most physically dominant players of his era. He's perfectly capable of carrying the "toughness" of the line - once he finishes skating slowly into the offensive zone behind Maltsev.
The Barry line is a little more problematic. Barry is pretty tough, but I'm not sure if he can handle being both the main puckwinner of a line and its best offensive player - is Damphousse credible as a puck winner at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. Yeah, I'll probably switch Clarke down to PK2, depends on how the rest of the draft turns out.
Clarke is a weird player where I think you'd almost be better off putting Oates on the first PP and Clarke on the 2nd PP/1st PK. I dunno - depends on who else you draft.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-27-2013 at 10:53 PM.
With the discussions on the percentage method being thrown around lately, I figured I would apply it to the Walker/Gare comparison. For Gare, I used the #2 every time. For Walker I used the #2 from my reconstructed points project every time. (of his top 6 seasons, the #2 was the leading scorer was in his own league 3 times, and was from the other league 3 times)
Jack Walker's 6 best seasons = 357
Danny Gare's 6 best seasons = 353
Thoughts?
I'd say Gare comes away looking better with linemates considered.
I'd say Gare comes away looking better with linemates considered.
Perhaps, but...
His best season was on a line with Frank Foyston (who Walker outscored 2:1) and an MLD/AAA guy. He led the 1914 Stanley Cup Champions in regular season and play-off scoring.
His next best season was on a line with Frank Foyston (who Walker tied), and Smokey Harris (who he outscored).
His best season was on a line with Frank Foyston (who Walker outscored 2:1) and an MLD/AAA guy. He led the 1914 Stanley Cup Champions in regular season and play-off scoring.
His next best season was on a line with Frank Foyston (who Walker tied), and Smokey Harris (who he outscored).
Walker was also great in the playoffs when Victoria won the Cup against Montreal in,,,I think it was 1925. He definitely had his moments offensively, though for much of his career, I think he was essentially playing defensive midfield as a rover in the seven man game.
I'd say Gare comes away looking better with linemates considered.
Except didn't Gare get a lot of time with Perreault in his best two seasons? TDMM mentioned something about that, and at any rate, Gare's linemates were good even-strength scorers. I dunno how we evaluate powerplay opportunities in this case.
Walker was also great in the playoffs when Victoria won the Cup against Montreal in,,,I think it was 1925. He definitely had his moments offensively, though for much of his career, I think he was essentially playing defensive midfield as a rover in the seven man game.
I agree with that. Walker was not a big-time offensive producer, but I think it had more to do with his role than his abilities.
He was the play-off point leader in two championships - 1914 and 1925.
Except didn't Gare get a lot of time with Perreault in his best two seasons? TDMM mentioned something about that, and at any rate, Gare's linemates were good even-strength scorers. I dunno how we evaluate powerplay opportunities in this case.
Gare received extensive PP time for two seasons, 79-80 and 80-81. But in those years, he was still 2nd and 10th in ESG in the entire NHL. In those seasons, I think Robert may have switched to play the point on the PP and Gare took his spot as the RW on the first PP unit. I'd have to think Walker was consistently on the PP for his team for most of his career, no?
Except didn't Gare get a lot of time with Perreault in his best two seasons? TDMM mentioned something about that, and at any rate, Gare's linemates were good even-strength scorers. I dunno how we evaluate powerplay opportunities in this case.
Gare's 3 best seasons are 1976, 1980, and 1981. 1976 seems like a legit Ramsay-Luce-Gare season, but I don't think the other two were.
Gare seems to have been put on the first unit PP starting in 1980. Gare was actually 2nd in the league in PP goals in 1980 (though he was also 2nd in even strength goals). Before 1980, it seems Gare rarely got PP time, which of course includes his wonderful 1976 season.
Buffalo traded Rene Robert after 1979, so I would not be surprised if Gare became Perreault's full-time RW starting in 1980, which would mean 2 of Gare's 3 best seasons would be full time with Perreault. Either way, Luce's point totals declined quite a bit in 1980 and he was traded away at the 1981 deadline. Luce was 6 years older than Gare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721
Gare received extensive PP time for two seasons, 79-80 and 80-81. But in those years, he was still 2nd and 10th in ESG in the entire NHL. In those seasons, I think Robert may have switched to play the point on the PP and Gare took his spot as the RW on the first PP unit. I'd have to think Walker was consistently on the PP for his team for most of his career, no?
When Walker played, starters still played the full 60 minute, right? (does anyone have a good year to estimate when that stopped?)
As I said above, Robert was traded away after 1979.
Well, as far as I know, Lester Patrick was the first to roll with two lines, which he did against Montreal in the 1925 Cup Challenge.
Correct, although teams had subs before this time, so I don't think it is accurate to say that starters went the full 60. Some probably did, but not all. I'm trying to remember when the powerplay was actually introduced in the PCHA. I don't think powerplays even existed for at least part of Walker's career. I'm pretty sure I found the exact season when the powerplay rules were implemented in both the PCHA and NHL and posted the information in the Dirt thread, but I'm too lazy to look for it right now.
The Barry line is a little more problematic. Barry is pretty tough, but I'm not sure if he can handle being both the main puckwinner of a line and its best offensive player - is Damphousse credible as a puck winner at all?
Damphousse is a pretty big body at 6'1'' 200, Barry is a very big body at an adjusted 6'3 or 6'4 220-225. Puckwinning and going to war in the corners isn't really a concern for me with that line.
Damphousse is a pretty big body at 6'1'' 200, Barry is a very big body at an adjusted 6'3 or 6'4 220-225. Puckwinning and going to war in the corners isn't really a concern for me with that line.
Damphousse definitely has the ability and willingness to scrap for the puck a bit, at least from what I saw in San Jose (and I can only imagine he wasn't less aggressive as a younger player) and I think he's fine on a sort of puckwinning-by-committee line where all three guys are expected to contribute. Same for Barry. Darragh is downright soft, though, and I'd say the line as a whole is maybe a bit light on grit, though not extremely so. Almost no second line in this draft is perfect.
Duke Keats was one of the most physically dominant players of his era. He's perfectly capable of carrying the "toughness" of the line - once he finishes skating slowly into the offensive zone behind Maltsev.
The Barry line is a little more problematic. Barry is pretty tough, but I'm not sure if he can handle being both the main puckwinner of a line and its best offensive player - is Damphousse credible as a puck winner at all?
Clarke is a weird player where I think you'd almost be better off putting Oates on the first PP and Clarke on the 2nd PP/1st PK. I dunno - depends on who else you draft.
That is going to be like Stewart on my team but luckily he has Cashman so he can just dump it in and take his time
Damphousse definitely has the ability and willingness to scrap for the puck a bit, at least from what I saw in San Jose (and I can only imagine he wasn't less aggressive as a younger player) and I think he's fine on a sort of puckwinning-by-committee line where all three guys are expected to contribute. Same for Barry. Darragh is downright soft, though, and I'd say the line as a whole is maybe a bit light on grit, though not extremely so. Almost no second line in this draft is perfect.
In Toronto Damphousse wasn't a particularly gritty or noteworthy defensive player in my mind.
