HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 - Draft Thread V

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-28-2013, 02:14 AM
  #176
Wrigley
Moderator
 
Wrigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,171
vCash: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Richards is closer to Staal than Turgeon, just look at their adjusted points.
Agreed and the numbers will show it. Also, there were more talented centers from 87-07 than from 2000-present so top 10 finishes does not impress me in the least.

Wrigley is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:19 AM
  #177
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Turgeon is very flattered by adjusted points in that his best season was in 1992-93, (since stars scored a disproportionately high amount of league offense in that year, but adjusted points is adjusted to league average). This is why VS2 is superior to adjusted points for star level players, even if the kinks haven't been worked out yet. Anyway, here are adjusted points by season since I find calculating VS2 to be tedious:

Staal: 98, 89, 82, 78, 77, 75, 71
Richards: 96, 91, 88, 83, 82, 73, 71, 71, 67, 67, 50
Turgeon 106* 92, 89, 89, 88, 86, 84, 80, 78, 74, 72, 72, 71, 53

*All adjusted points of first liners are highly inflated in 1992-93, but a pretty big margin.

Turgeon is definitely still ahead in regular season offense, even if his best 3 seasons aren't that different from Richards.' I think Richards is closer to Turgeon than he is to Staal though, and I do think Richards is better than Turgeon in everything that isn't regular season offense.

I honestly don't know who I would take between Richards and Turgeon, to be honest. Maybe that's unfair to Turgeon who did put up superior regular season numbers from their 4th best seasons on, but in a team building exercise like this... I guess I would say Turgeon is more of an impact player, but he also has to be insulated.

Edit: On the other hand, just saying the words "Turgeon" and "impact player" in the same sentence feels wrong.
Pierre Turgeon
Points Percentage 89(1993), 87(1992), 86(1997), 85(2001), 82(1990), 80(1996), 78(1994), 77(1989), 75(1998), 70(2000), 69(1991), 67(1995), 61(1999), 52(2002)

Best 6 Seasons: 509


Brad Richards
Points Percentage - 91(2004), 86(2006), 83(2010), 78(2011), 71(2003), 69(2002), 68(2012), 65(2001), 61(2007), 58(2008)

Best 6 Seasons: 478

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:20 AM
  #178
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Turgeon is very flattered by adjusted points in that his best season was in 1992-93, (since stars scored a disproportionately high amount of league offense in that year, but adjusted points is adjusted to league average). This is why VS2 is superior to adjusted points for star level players, even if the kinks haven't been worked out yet. Anyway, here are adjusted points by season since I find calculating VS2 to be tedious:

Staal: 98, 89, 82, 78, 77, 75, 71
Richards: 96, 91, 88, 83, 82, 73, 71, 71, 67, 67, 50
Turgeon 106* 92, 89, 89, 88, 86, 84, 80, 78, 74, 72, 72, 71, 53

*All adjusted points of first liners are highly inflated in 1992-93, but a pretty big margin.

Turgeon is definitely still ahead in regular season offense, even if his best 3 seasons aren't that different from Richards.' I think Richards is closer to Turgeon than he is to Staal though, and I do think Richards is better than Turgeon in everything that isn't regular season offense.

I honestly don't know who I would take between Richards and Turgeon, to be honest. Maybe that's unfair to Turgeon who did put up superior regular season numbers from their 4th best seasons on, but in a team building exercise like this... I guess I would say Turgeon is more of an impact player, but he also has to be insulated.
Eh, Richards has on average two more adjusted points per top-7 season than Staal. Considering an otherwise inferior skillset, and the fact that his Smythe is nearly offset by Staal's own great run, it's fairly close.

OTOH, Turgeon has over 7 more adjusted points per top-7 season than Richards, so at least offensively, he's quite far ahead and the gap between him and Richards is over three times the gap between Richards and Staal...

MadArcand is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:22 AM
  #179
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Pierre Turgeon
Points Percentage 89(1993), 87(1992), 86(1997), 85(2001), 82(1990), 80(1996), 78(1994), 77(1989), 75(1998), 70(2000), 69(1991), 67(1995), 61(1999), 52(2002)

Best 6 Seasons: 509


Brad Richards
Points Percentage - 91(2004), 86(2006), 83(2010), 78(2011), 71(2003), 69(2002), 68(2012), 65(2001), 61(2007), 58(2008)

Best 6 Seasons: 478
Thanks. The way "adjusted points" treat 1992-93 sticks out like a sore thumb.

Basically what I said in the other post, their three best regular seasons are equal offensively (which means Richards was a bit better since he was better in non-offense), but Richards has a pretty steep drop off between his 3rd and 5th best seasons, and Turgeon just kept getting his points.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:24 AM
  #180
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Eh, Richards has on average two more adjusted points per top-7 season than Staal. Considering an otherwise inferior skillset, and the fact that his Smythe is nearly offset by Staal's own great run, it's fairly close.

OTOH, Turgeon has over 7 more adjusted points per top-7 season than Richards, so at least offensively, he's quite far ahead and the gap between him and Richards is over three times the gap between Richards and Staal...
This is meaningless since you are apparently taking hockey-reference's "adjusted points" formula seriously for 1992-93

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:29 AM
  #181
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is meaningless since you are apparently taking hockey-reference's "adjusted points" formula seriously for 1992-93
Even if we completely remove the 92-93 season and use Turgeon's 2nd to 8th seasons to compare to Richards' top-7, he still comes out ahead by 5 points per season, i.e. 2.5 times as much as Richards is ahead of Staal.

QED.

MadArcand is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:30 AM
  #182
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Even if we completely remove the 92-93 season and use Turgeon's 2nd to 8th seasons to compare to Richards' top-7, he still comes out ahead by 5 points per season, i.e. 2.5 times as much as Richards is ahead of Staal.

QED.
I assume you are using top 7 seasons, rather than top 3 or top 5 or top 10 like a normal person because it makes your point look strongest.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:32 AM
  #183
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I assume you are using top 7 seasons, rather than top 3 or top 5 or top 10 like a normal person because it makes your point look strongest.
I think he used 7 because that's how many 50+ seasons Staal had, which was the fewest of the 3 in the comparison.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:33 AM
  #184
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 16,402
vCash: 500
What's the average length of a prime and how do you define a prime?

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:35 AM
  #185
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I think he used 7 because that's how many 50+ seasons Staal had, which was the fewest of the 3 in the comparison.
Bingo.

I'm also pretty sure that the more seasons would be used, the worse Richards would be off when compared to Turgeon.

MadArcand is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:38 AM
  #186
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I think he used 7 because that's how many 50+ seasons Staal had, which was the fewest of the 3 in the comparison.
Yeah, I know, but it was sloppy work that happened to be pretty much the perfect time frame to show what he wants. But I guess I was sloppy to even bother posting adjusted points. Anyway, as any reasonable metric shows, Richards stays right with Turgeon through 3 seasons, and doesn't really fall far behind until seasons 5, 6, 7. And then Staal falls way behind once you get past 7, since he only has 8 seasons, and really only 7 as an impact player (I only posted seasons of over 50 points).

So if you looked at best 3 or best 10 seasons, it would show exactly the opposite of what MA was saying, and best 5 probably would show the opposite, as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
What's the average length of a prime and how do you define a prime?
There's something of a best 3 (peak), best 5 (prime), best 10 (?) thing that is sometimes done, but it's loosely followed.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:43 AM
  #187
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 16,402
vCash: 500
But athletically speaking, wouldn't most people say that their peak is 22-29 or so?

bluesfan94 is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:47 AM
  #188
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I assume you are using top 7 seasons, rather than top 3 or top 5 or top 10 like a normal person because it makes your point look strongest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
But athletically speaking, wouldn't most people say that their peak is 22-29 or so?
Actually, I generally use top-7 as my first guideline when evaluating postwar players, because I think seven years has been an average length peak for a good while now. I am somewhat more forgiving for prewar guys, though it depends a lot on the setting. Not that I'm a normal person...but I think there is a good deal of rationality to this. Ten years is a long peak, and five years is short. Seven just feels right to me, so I tend to use that as the magic number of seasons that I look at when making my first evaluations. Anyone whose peak tapers off before they hit seven seasons gets knocked in my calculations, and anyone whose peak lasts longer gets diminishing rewards for every season after seven.

This is one of the greatest areas of methodological "disagreement" between seventies and I. He seems to reward players as much for their 12th best season as for their 1st, but that's probably just a product of watching Mats Sundin be "really very good" for so long. I don't see much reason to value comparative stats for seasons 8+ as much as I do for the period of time that covers a normal athletic peak, so I guess I probably like Richards more than some do. I'm not Richards' biggest fan by any means, but I think he has reached an average length peak by this point and can be fairly compared to other ATDers without getting knocked too much for inferior longevity.

Longevity is nice and I am not a fan of short-peak players, but in a one season setting like the ATD, I tend to view longevity as a kind of intangible (like health and season-to-season consistency) rather than a first-order criteria when evaluating players. I guess that means Pierre Turgeon has at least one "intangible" by my criteria, which sounds kind of wrong, but that's generally how I see things.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:47 AM
  #189
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Bingo.

I'm also pretty sure that the more seasons would be used, the worse Richards would be off when compared to Turgeon.
Okay, let's look at their best 10 seasons by adjusted points

Staal: 98, 89, 82, 78, 77, 75, 71, 36, 0, 0. Sum: 606
Richards: 96, 91, 88, 83, 82, 73, 71, 71, 67, 67 Sum: 789
Turgeon 106* 92, 89, 89, 88, 86, 84, 80, 78, 74 Sum: 866*

*at least 10 points too high due to the failure of the formula in 92-93

QED

Anyway, this little tit for tat thing probably isn't that helpful since adjusted points are crap compared to a well-defined percentage/vs2/whatever system for star players.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:59 AM
  #190
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
I should use the percentage method for Russell Bowie. I be he approaches 1000

Edit:
Bowie's top 6 seasons are 876

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:00 AM
  #191
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Okay, let's look at their best 10 seasons by adjusted points

Staal: 98, 89, 82, 78, 77, 75, 71, 36, 0, 0. Sum: 606
Richards: 96, 91, 88, 83, 82, 73, 71, 71, 67, 67 Sum: 789
Turgeon 106* 92, 89, 89, 88, 86, 84, 80, 78, 74 Sum: 866*

*at least 10 points too high due to the failure of the formula in 92-93

QED

Anyway, this little tit for tat thing probably isn't that helpful since adjusted points are crap compared to a well-defined percentage/vs2/whatever system for star players.
Surely you see the folly in using more seasons than a compared player's career contains... right? We're not talking totals, we're talking about production during their primes. And Richards simply doesn't fare too well there, which should be no surprise to anyone, as Richards is obviously nothing special.

But you seem to have some sort of love affair with grossly overrated current NYR players.

MadArcand is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:29 AM
  #192
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Lars Erik Sjoberg - I think there's a real chance this guy could be underrated. I know Sturm called him a below average #4 last time, but i really think with a good profile his value could increase quite a bit... or maybe not.
I really wish we knew more about Sjoberg. He could have been a lot better than I give him credit for, but without more information, it is hard to consider him more than a mediocre second pairing puckmover. We know so very little about his career. Hopefully one of these days, a Swedish GM will pull together more information on him. I've looked, but there's very little out there in English.

aside: one of the awesome things about living in Europe is that you meet random hockey fans who know crazy stuff about some of the players. I was recently informed, for example, that Helmut Balderis (my personal man-crush) was trained as a figure skater as a kid, which probably explains his distinctive skating style. Figure skaters are trained to accelerate hard with lots of short, choppy steps and to make very tight turns in their skates - all of which pretty much describes Balderis as a skater.

I recently asked the same guy (a "Russland Deutscher" or a Russian-German...one of the descendents of the Germans who settled the Volga river in the 18th and 19th centuries, and who were forced into labor camps mostly in Khazakstan under Stalin and later allowed to return to Germany after the wall came down) who told me that about Balderis about what was up with Petrov, and he confirmed that part of the disconnect between Petrov's scoring and his reputation may have come from his conflicts with Soviet coaching. But it wasn't V_T. He said Petrov didn't get along very well with the Soviet coach who ran the team in-between Tasarov and V_T, and that was the reason for his suspension in the 1976 world championships.

He also said that Petrov was never consistently physical and let his linemates do a lot of the work, but was strong, liked to run guys occasionally and could be quite vicious when angered. About Kharlamov's all-around game, he said that Valeri was very much an end-to-end winger before the first car crash in 1976 (which was a bad year for Soviet hockey, all around), but became much more cautious in the corners and generally lazier after that time. He said Shadrin was a great worker, terrific with his stick, always buzzing around in the neutral zone and was very dangerous in the counterattack, but could be easily pushed off the puck in the offensive zone (sounds a bit like Edgar Laprade, or a poor man's Pavel Datsyuk).

I really need to bribe this guy (Viktor is his name) to write down his impressions of all these players some day. He's the only person I know who actually watched Soviet League games during the golden age of European hockey. His written English is pretty rough, though, so I may eventually just have to properly "interview" him and transcribe all the stuff he says, which will be harder than it sounds because he doesn't drink.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:44 AM
  #193
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
One more thing: he said that Petrov was the only Soviet player who really used a slapshot, and that he was often criticized for it, even when he scored with it. He said that the slapshot was considered by the Soviets to be somehow brutish (possibly because there were no goalie masks in the league at the time Petrov started using it), and that part of the Soviet offensive philosophy revolved around purposefully generating rebounds with quick wristers.

Specifically, he said Tasarov trained his skaters to take wrist shots in full stride and very suddenly from relatively high in the offensive zone (something we saw Kharlamov do pretty often) almost as a kind of pass to their linemates who were theoretically crashing down on the net. He said that the Soviets would practice this endlessly and learned precisely the angles at which one must shoot in order to have the best likelihood of generating a rebound which will pop out to a teammate. He says they studied Dryden and determined that he would be very vulnerable to this tactic, and I guess they were right. At any rate, he said that Petrov was miserable at executing this play and preferred to wind up slapshots, which enraged the coaches and unhelpful to his linemates, especially Mikhailov, who was excellent at pouncing on the rebounds generated by the Soviet rebound play.

I'll see what else I can recall about our last long conversation on Soviet hockey. Sadly, he wasn't drinking at the time, but I was.

edit: one more thing about Petrov. He said that Maltsev was tried centering Kharlamov and Mikhailov (didn't he center them in the 1972 Summit Series?), but that the experiment was short-lived and the chemistry wasn't there. He didn't say why, but I suspect this would be a problem of Maltsev and Kharlamov both being fairly puck-dominant. Petrov was the best center they had at CSKA and had played with his wingers for so long at the club level that the unit was left together on the national team for a long time even though Soviet coaches were in general not big fans of Petrov.


Last edited by Sturminator: 02-28-2013 at 03:57 AM.
Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 05:53 AM
  #194
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,562
vCash: 500
I will take Sandis Ozolinsh, D.

Reds4Life is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 06:55 AM
  #195
BubbaBoot
Registered User
 
BubbaBoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Fenway
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 11,306
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Not to get us a way from the annual Turgeon ****storm, but comments on two other guys:

1) Albert Leduc. He's one of the main reasons I'm skeptical of what Sturminator at least once called "the increasing decadence of ATD bios" - long lines of glowing quotes about a player. I completely bought Leaf Forever's Leduc bio from ATD12 and decided he would be an excellent #5 the follpwing draft. Then sometime during the ATD finals (with Leduc still as my #5), Joe Pelletier came out with a new bio of Leduc that basically said that his "Battleship" nickname was because it took him a long time to get up to speed and couldn't really stop, so he crashed around into everything, whether it be players, boards, whatever. Then later, information was presented that Leduc spent most of his career as a spare which is where all the quotes about the crowd cheering when he came onto the ice came from. I'm not sure where Leduc should be drafted, but I doubt it should be here.
Like I said, my kind of guy.

BubbaBoot is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 06:59 AM
  #196
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
BC - Please for the love of god, move Harry Howell to your 2nd PP unit or draft a #6 defenseman who can replace Bert Corbeau there. Please, promise me you won't let Bert Corbeau play on the PP.
Am I a victim of an EB bio?

He sounded like he fit what I was trying to make my defense look like this year to me.

My impression was he was pretty decent all around but with an edge at times.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
3 top 10 finishes for Richards vs 2 for Turgeon plus a Conn Smythe for Richards, plus while Richards isn't an intangibles beast by any stretch (it was hilarious seeing one of his previous owners try to portray him as such), he's still better than Turgeon in things that don't involve putting up points. Turgeon may very well be ahead of Richards (he definitely beats him in longevity as an impact player, which I'm sure VS2 scores would show), but is it really by that much?

I think both guys are near the top of the "Hall of Very Good" class of centers.
Was that me? I don't think that Richards is Doug Gilmour by any stretch but he is definitely better in that regard than Turgeon like you say..

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 07:33 AM
  #197
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Was Elias ever close to 5th in the league in points over a 6-year period?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Probably not, but I really don't care to check, since it would be time consuming and something of trivia.
Elias was 9th from 1999 to 2004. Elias was 9th, 7 points behind 4th, over the 5 years before the 2004 lockout, and of course is in the top 5 in playoff scoring for multiple 6 year periods, including a 1st.

The biggest thing about Elias being held back would be TOI. He was 3rd in points in 2001 but only 107th in TOI. He was 6th in points in 2004 but only 103rd in TOI. He was 10th in points in 2012 but only 94th in TOI.

BM67 is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 07:37 AM
  #198
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Am I a victim of an EB bio?
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but you probably ended up overrating Corbeau if you just read EB's bio of him, yes. EB is really good at gathering information, formatting it, and putting it all together in one place where it is easy to access, and he is among the most honest GMs about the faults of his players. He is not, however, particularly good at presenting the information in such a way that it is easy to digest without a clear understanding of the context. In Corbeau's case...I think the bio is pretty flattering, and I agree with TDMM that Big Bert should not be anywhere near an ATD 1st unit powerplay. He'd be below-average as a 2nd unit guy, IMO, but on a 1st unit he's a big, fluttering red flag of do not want.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 07:38 AM
  #199
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,992
vCash: 500
Eskimos picks a hardworking right winger:



Bob Nystrom, RW

Hobnobs is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 08:21 AM
  #200
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but you probably ended up overrating Corbeau if you just read EB's bio of him, yes. EB is really good at gathering information, formatting it, and putting it all together in one place where it is easy to access, and he is among the most honest GMs about the faults of his players. He is not, however, particularly good at presenting the information in such a way that it is easy to digest without a clear understanding of the context. In Corbeau's case...I think the bio is pretty flattering, and I agree with TDMM that Big Bert should not be anywhere near an ATD 1st unit powerplay. He'd be below-average as a 2nd unit guy, IMO, but on a 1st unit he's a big, fluttering red flag of do not want.
I'm ok with him being a below average 2nd unit guy.. that is all I need him for and I may still pick up a better option later.

My first unit is going to be outstanding anyways.

BraveCanadian 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 07:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.