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.

All-Time Draft #8, Part II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2007, 10:00 PM
  #101
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleh View Post
If we're counting retroactive Norrises then Pit and Speaker will both end up ahead of 9, as will Reck probably.

And about the unparalleled 1-2 punch: Orr-Conacher, Stevens-Gadsby, Cleghorne-Stewart, Niedermayer-Pronger, and Shore-Reardon are all as good or better IMO.

However, the best 1-2 punch in the draft by quite a wide margin is Dubai's duo of Red Kelly and Brad Park.
EDIT.
Will write what I want after.

MXD is online now  
Old
09-24-2007, 10:01 PM
  #102
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Now my top-5 defensemen from ATD#6 have been selected by pick 126 (Clapper, Gadsby, Pronovost, Reardon, Boucher).

pitseleh is offline  
Old
09-24-2007, 10:05 PM
  #103
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleh View Post
And about the unparalleled 1-2 punch: Orr-Conacher, Stevens-Gadsby, Cleghorne-Stewart, Niedermayer-Pronger, and Shore-Reardon are all as good or better IMO.

However, the best 1-2 punch in the draft by quite a wide margin is Dubai's duo of Red Kelly and Brad Park.
i agree, except about pronger--niedermayer. it isn't close to the others. shore and reardon will be in the box a lot, though.

nik jr is offline  
Old
09-24-2007, 10:07 PM
  #104
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Niedermayer-Pronger, with their one norris between them, not a chance.

norris trophies.... IMO, 9 is more impressive.
A Conn Smythe and a Hart ought to be worth a half dozen or more Norris trophies.

There's a difference between ranking on all-time lists and best player to have in any given season.

Build a team rather than draft trophies, imo.

VanIslander is offline  
Old
09-24-2007, 10:18 PM
  #105
raleh
Registered User
 
raleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Niedermayer-Pronger, with their one norris between them, not a chance.

Orr and anyone as good as Mathieu Schneider or better would be better, so that is more of a 1-1 punch.

Cleghorne-Stewart is fantastic, but not quite there.

Stevens-Gadsby, great players, but with zero norris trophies.... IMO, 9 is more impressive.
Big fan of hardware eh?

Niedermayer and Pronger are a duo with proven chemistry- that gives them an advantage right away. Pronger has a Hart- that trumps a Norris every time. The fact that they were selected way earlier than Boucher should give you an idea of what they'll do for New Jersey.
Cleghorne and Stewart to me are both top 20 guys and EXTREMELY underrated, but you can have your opinion too so we'll leave that alone.

Stevens and Gadsby have no Norris trophies BUT Stevens was the best player and captain of 3 stanley cup winning teams and is quite possibly the hardest hitter in leauge history. Gadsby was the third best defenceman in one of the most defensive eras in hockey history. Lidstrom has NEVER had to face the competition that Gadsby had to for Norris trophies. That's like punishing Park for never winning one. Plus Lapointe is also on that team. He and Stevens or he and Gadsby are a pretty formidable duo as well. This team has three dmen better than your #2 IMO.

You've got yourself a top 10 dman and a top 25-30 one as well. Pretty freakin' good. Halifax can't say the same. In fact none of my teams have ever been able to say that. But touting them as the best duo in the draft is going to raise some eye brows...or at least my eye brows.

raleh is offline  
Old
09-24-2007, 10:22 PM
  #106
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Now my top-5 defensemen from ATD#6 have been selected by pick 126 (Clapper, Gadsby, Pronovost, Reardon, Boucher).
Getting Boucher as late as you did is one of the biggest steals in ATD history.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline  
Old
09-24-2007, 10:30 PM
  #107
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Niedermayer-Pronger, with their one norris between them, not a chance.
One Norris each.

Also a Hart and a Conn Smythe, and Scott also tied for the playoff scoring lead in 03.

That plus the physicality of Pronger certainly keeps me in the running.

BM67 is offline  
Old
09-24-2007, 10:45 PM
  #108
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,789
vCash: 500
A quick response to the Carbonneau pick...

This is by no means a condemnation of Guy Carbonneau. I think he's one of the top defensive centres of all-time. Maybe the best. I think you could definitely make a case for Guy in the HHOF. I would vote for him. Three-time Selke winner. Three-time Cup champion. And outside of Roy, nobody meant more to the 1993 Habs than Guy.

My problem with Guy's selection is that outside of high-scoring centres, the role with the most depth in the draft is strong defensive centres. We were picking top-notch defensive centres in the last minor league draft. And there were still some left over to be picked. The question isn't whether there's enough of a drop-off from Guy to No. 2 to warrant a selection in the first six rounds. It would be one thing if there was a big drop-off from No. 1 to 2. That could definitely justify the Carbo pick at this point. I don't think there's enough, and frankly, teams will be getting dominant shut-down centres in the 13th round.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
09-24-2007, 10:49 PM
  #109
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
A quick response to the Carbonneau pick...

This is by no means a condemnation of Guy Carbonneau. I think he's one of the top defensive centres of all-time. Maybe the best. I think you could definitely make a case for Guy in the HHOF. I would vote for him. Three-time Selke winner. Three-time Cup champion. And outside of Roy, nobody meant more to the 1993 Habs than Guy.

My problem with Guy's selection is that outside of high-scoring centres, the role with the most depth in the draft is strong defensive centres. We were picking top-notch defensive centres in the last minor league draft. And there were still some left over to be picked. The question isn't whether there's enough of a drop-off from Guy to No. 2 to warrant a selection in the first six rounds. It would be one thing if there was a big drop-off from No. 1 to 2. That could definitely justify the Carbo pick at this point. I don't think there's enough, and frankly, teams will be getting dominant shut-down centres in the 13th round.
Then there's the Dave Keon factor, dominant shutdown centers who can put up some serious point totals.

Nalyd Psycho is offline  
Old
09-24-2007, 11:45 PM
  #110
pavel13
Registered User
 
pavel13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to pavel13
Dave Keon and some others. Maybe not as good defensively, but there are some great two-way centers still available.

pavel13 is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 12:07 AM
  #111
ck26
#freeRabbit
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 6,831
vCash: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
My problem with Guy's selection is that outside of high-scoring centres, the role with the most depth in the draft is strong defensive centres. We were picking top-notch defensive centres in the last minor league draft. And there were still some left over to be picked. The question isn't whether there's enough of a drop-off from Guy to No. 2 to warrant a selection in the first six rounds. It would be one thing if there was a big drop-off from No. 1 to 2. That could definitely justify the Carbo pick at this point. I don't think there's enough, and frankly, teams will be getting dominant shut-down centres in the 13th round.
Defense is a funny thing, because what makes it work can be a bit unpredictable, and the margin of error is small. Who knew that Lidstrom and Murphy were going to shut down the Legion of Doom in '97? $20 says even Scotty Bowman didn't know it was going to work. Maybe if the '93 Kings have Lemieux instead of Gretzky, the Habs can't stop him, Lemieux runs wild and the Kings win the Cup. Maybe Pahlsson and co. fail miserably at checking Spezza/Alfredsson/Hossa in the finals last spring. Whether defense succedes or fails often comes down to individual skill sets and subsets (a split-second faster reaction time determines if Brett Hull gets his shot off or if Bob Gainey poke-checks his puck away), psychology (ask anyone who's carried the puck across the New Jersey blue line) and sometimes even dumb luck.

Is the defensive player a hitter? Receiving a big hit makes some superstars run and hide while others don't wake up until they get nailed. Does constantly having someone half your size zip in and take your puck away frustrate you easily? Some forwards yes, others no. If my linemate Cam Neely is pissed off and frustrated, that's a good thing. If my linemate Jaromir Jagr is pissed off and frustrated, that's a bad thing. Simply too many paper-rock-scissors scenarios to cover all your bases.

My point is ... yes, there were a ton of good defensive forwards taken even in MLD 7 ... and, depending on the matchup, maybe some of the MLD7 checkers do a better job against the Beliveaus and Richards than Gainey and Carbonneau could. In certain matchups, even Fedorov, with his skating ability, might be more desirable than Carbonneau, even if you're just using Fedorov as a 3rd line grinder. Hard to say. But for the sake of debate in a drafting game, we do have:

Selke trophies: good tool, but only really gives you about a dozen names.
Point totals: offensive production is itself a useful skill, but what does it have to do with defense?
Citing specific results: Useful, but only in very specifc situations. Drawing broad conclusions based on what happened in game 6 of the such-and-such semifinals probably isn't fair to the guy who ate some bad food that afternoon or whose wife left him or was just having a lousy day.
Testimonial / anecdotal evidence: a total crapshoot for players pre-1960 or so. i'm watching Carbonneau live and I'm reading someone else's opinion about Dave Keon. 10 out of 10 scientists agree that isn't scientific.

Only Selke trophies + testimonial evidence are good tools, and we're playing a drafting game, so being able to convince voters I'm right will probably come into play eventually. I'm in a division against some of the best scorers in hockey history, so if I wait and take obscure guys (even guys I know can get the job done), the voters will kill me for it.

I don't think we'll be getting "dominant" defensive centers in the 13th round (we have different definitions of "dominant"), but we will be getting good ones. My problem is "what do I do to negate Mario Lemieux or Jean Beliveau?" I'd rather throw three or four Selke trophies at Lemieux than cross my fingers and hope that the voters will think as highly of [15th round grinder] as I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Then there's the Dave Keon factor, dominant shutdown centers who can put up some serious point totals.
I was looking for some of those with my two 2nd round picks ... how did I do?

ck26 is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 01:08 AM
  #112
Roger's Pancreas*
 
Roger's Pancreas*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,363
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Roger's Pancreas*
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleh View Post
Big fan of hardware eh?

Niedermayer and Pronger are a duo with proven chemistry- that gives them an advantage right away. Pronger has a Hart- that trumps a Norris every time. The fact that they were selected way earlier than Boucher should give you an idea of what they'll do for New Jersey. Cleghorne and Stewart to me are both top 20 guys and EXTREMELY underrated, but you can have your opinion too so we'll leave that alone.
How do they have proven chemistry? They spent one year together on different defensive pairings.

Roger's Pancreas* is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 01:21 AM
  #113
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cottonking View Post
I was looking for some of those with my two 2nd round picks ... how did I do?
Fair enough, I do really like your 1st line. At least you aren't screwing yourself out of good scoring liners for a checking liner. It's just different from how I'd pick...

Nalyd Psycho is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 01:30 AM
  #114
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
Golden Swallow
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Halifax is pleased to successfully reunite the Bentley brothers. We believe that Doug Bentley is unquestionably the best LW available, and frankly, we had him rated No. 1 on our list from the moment we picked Neely. Never thought we would be able to get him after we selected Neely. The Bentley's and Neely should prove to be one of the best lines in the draft. We believe we should also have outstanding chemistry with the Bentley's and the Neely-Bourque duo. While he never won a Cup, Doug was a key part of the last Milt Dunnell Cup champions.

Career highlights:
*1943 Art Ross Trophy winner
*Three-time first-team all-star (1943, 1944 and 1947)
*1949 second-team all-star
*Inducted into the HHOF in 1964
*No. 73 on the THN top 100 list
*Formed a dominant line in Chicago with his brother Max for several seasons.
*Named the top hockey player in Chicago for the first half of the 20th Century by the Herald American.
I must say, I do like how that line has come together. Neely's still picked a little early for my liking, all things considered, but Doug Bentley being picked so late makes up for it, and each of their games suit one another quite well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I've always been in favour of using a player's "adjusted" size, so to speak. Doug Bentley would still be one of the lightest players in the league today, but, due to weight training, nutrition, etc., he'd be more like 160-170 lbs instead of 145. Eddie Shore would be 210-220 lbs, maybe more, instead of 194.

This still lets huge players like Pronger and Robinson push around truly small players like Bentley or Joliat, so modern players aren't penalized. It also gives the Shores and L. Conachers the raw force necessary to shut down the Neelys and Shanahans, which sounds right to me.
Couldn't have said it better myself. So I'll agree and try to catch some reflected glory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
pitseleh has orr, shouldn't be too hard after that.

great pick; we were hoping he would fall further but weren't counting on it. boucher beat out cleghorn and clancy among others those retroactive norris trophies.
A few he did. A couple of times he didn't. And two of those times he beat out Cleghorn for the retroactive Norris are very debatable, seeing as how Peg was the Hart runner-up in both '24 and '26.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Niedermayer-Pronger, with their one norris between them, not a chance.

Orr and anyone as good as Mathieu Schneider or better would be better, so that is more of a 1-1 punch.

Cleghorne-Stewart is fantastic, but not quite there.

Stevens-Gadsby, great players, but with zero norris trophies.... IMO, 9 is more impressive.
Care to elaborate?

Cleghorn was a great offensive defenseman who could skate very well, had as sound a defensive sense as any in his era, and could physically intimidate the opposition. He was recognized as the best defenseman in the game well before he had even won a Cup, and his esteem grew significantly from there.

Stewart was a defensive juggernaut and a lights-out hitter. Despite the fact that he was primarily known as a shutdown defenseman, when looking at his numbers it should be understood that cracking 20 points in his era meant you were an elite scorer from the back end. In the late '40s, plenty of All-Star defensemen didn't hit 20 points, and those who did managed it only by a hair. Stewart could contribute on the scoreboard too, relative to his time period.

Boucher and Lidstrom have great defensive sense, but neither is going to wear down the opposition physically, and Boucher was a lackluster skater. I like the combo, but it does have its faults.


Last edited by Rowdy Roddy Peeper: 09-25-2007 at 01:37 AM.
Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 01:35 AM
  #115
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
Golden Swallow
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger's Pancreas View Post
How do they have proven chemistry? They spent one year together on different defensive pairings.
But they like, hung out in the locker room and stuff.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 02:04 AM
  #116
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
A couple of comments:

- "size relativity": completely agree. Small is small and big is big, regardless of era.

- what, no love for Clancy - Vasiliev as one of the top pairings? I don't think they are the best (how is that possible when two of the first three picks are spent on forwards?), but not so much as a mention?

As a pairing, they are remarkably similar to Cleghorn - Stewart, only not as mean and more offensive. Is there an anti-Russian bias that keeps some GMs from acknowledging Vasi's greatness, or are we forgetting that these are teams we're building and not isolated pairs? Given the unbelievable speed in the division at present and the presence of the most dynamic pair of forwards in the draft on the Seals' top line, I can think of few better combinations for our top pairing and certainly none better given the players available when we made the picks.

Although we liked guys like Conacher and Bouchard (and others) in the 4th, we aren't building a team of individual talents, but one which will play together with a unified philosophy. Offensive defensemen are most useful when they have the right forwards to work with. The Gretzky - Clancy combination (we all know how much Gretz liked to use the trailing defenseman) is a combination made in all-time hockey heaven.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 03:31 AM
  #117
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
A Conn Smythe and a Hart ought to be worth a half dozen or more Norris trophies.

There's a difference between ranking on all-time lists and best player to have in any given season.

Build a team rather than draft trophies, imo.
You really think so?

take out all other variables - then compare a defenseman with 6 norrises to one who has just a hart or a smythe (forget for the moment that if he won the hart the norris should be a foregone conclusion) - you'd go for the flash in the pan?

Now, Niedermayer and Pronger aren't flashes in the pans, mind you, but let's not get all googly eyed over them either, due to recent history. Niedermayber has one one norris and was runner-up twice. He's even only made the 2nd all-star team once for a total of 4 times being top-4 for a season. Pronger has his one amazing season, but has not been a runner-up or a FTAS besides that. He does, however, have three 2nd team selections for a total of 4 times being top-4.

Niedermayer and Pronger have been top-5 defensemen for a decade and top-3 for the last five at least, but mainly due to Lidstrom (), neither of them have been able to be "the" guy for any length of time. Compared to Nik, who has been "the" guy 5 times and bridesmaid three others.

I agree on building team rather than drafting trophies. That's two heavy hitters together on one blueline. But Lidstrom and Boucher in the all-time draft are what Pronger and Niedermayer are in today's league, and having them together didn't hurt the Ducks. It meant that one of them was on the ice at all times, and it didn't hurt their team dynamic having two guys that talented together. We're dealing in relatives here, and I'd rather have two guys on my top pair who were top-2 in norris* voting a combined 13 times, than two guys who did the same a combined 8 times.

Anyway, trust me, I have a team concept in mind. I expect to create balance for what I already have.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 03:41 AM
  #118
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleh View Post
Big fan of hardware eh?

Niedermayer and Pronger are a duo with proven chemistry- that gives them an advantage right away. Pronger has a Hart- that trumps a Norris every time. The fact that they were selected way earlier than Boucher should give you an idea of what they'll do for New Jersey.
Cleghorne and Stewart to me are both top 20 guys and EXTREMELY underrated, but you can have your opinion too so we'll leave that alone.

Stevens and Gadsby have no Norris trophies BUT Stevens was the best player and captain of 3 stanley cup winning teams and is quite possibly the hardest hitter in leauge history. Gadsby was the third best defenceman in one of the most defensive eras in hockey history. Lidstrom has NEVER had to face the competition that Gadsby had to for Norris trophies. That's like punishing Park for never winning one. Plus Lapointe is also on that team. He and Stevens or he and Gadsby are a pretty formidable duo as well. This team has three dmen better than your #2 IMO.

You've got yourself a top 10 dman and a top 25-30 one as well. Pretty freakin' good. Halifax can't say the same. In fact none of my teams have ever been able to say that. But touting them as the best duo in the draft is going to raise some eye brows...or at least my eye brows.
No, I hate hardware.

I've addressed Nieds and Prongs up above, but I'd just like to add: what chemistry? They barely played together last season. Sure, prongs has a hart, but how many norrises can that compensate for, exactly?

Once you get past #15 for defensemen you can see all kinds of names there. Cleghorn is a sure thing, Gadsby.... maybe. I don't buy the competition argument. Either he was the best in the game at the time or he wasn't. I do give kudos for his 3 FTAS and 4 STAS.

I agree about stevens, but how much weight should we really be putting into these selected individual skills? Stevens was great offensively and could hit.... did it get him a norris? Should I draft Rico Fata because he's really fast? His speed never translated into more success. And the Bentley's softness didn't take away from theirs. #$^% @#$%^&*@# was slow, did that hurt him? In the end, shouldn't we care about what these skills netted in terms of individual and team accomplishments?

Again, it's all relative. Put them on the same sheet of ice and Boucher probably gets steamrolled by Gadsby and Stevens and Lidstrom. In terms of his excellence in his era, I don't see how he can't be considered better than the first two, and reasonably close to the third. Top-30, I'll settle for you conceding that, but his accomplishments speak more to me.

Not surprised that I raised some eyebrows though. While I'm at it, does any team even have two defensemen with three norrises each? What about two each?


Last edited by seventieslord: 09-25-2007 at 03:21 PM. Reason: to bleep out name of slow undrafted player.
seventieslord is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 03:42 AM
  #119
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
One Norris each.


I knew that.... egg on my face.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 03:54 AM
  #120
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctordark View Post
Care to elaborate?

Cleghorn was a great offensive defenseman who could skate very well, had as sound a defensive sense as any in his era, and could physically intimidate the opposition. He was recognized as the best defenseman in the game well before he had even won a Cup, and his esteem grew significantly from there.

Stewart was a defensive juggernaut and a lights-out hitter. Despite the fact that he was primarily known as a shutdown defenseman, when looking at his numbers it should be understood that cracking 20 points in his era meant you were an elite scorer from the back end. In the late '40s, plenty of All-Star defensemen didn't hit 20 points, and those who did managed it only by a hair. Stewart could contribute on the scoreboard too, relative to his time period.

Boucher and Lidstrom have great defensive sense, but neither is going to wear down the opposition physically, and Boucher was a lackluster skater. I like the combo, but it does have its faults.
Cleghorn and Boucher have to be close. 8 all-star team selections to 7, same era, Cleghorn is better by reputation, and went to more finals, and Boucher won more cups. I wanted Cleghorn 80 picks ago, so I'm not gonna say Boucher is better. But if he was a lackluster skater and was still a 4-time norris* winner then he must have been doing a lot of the other stuff well.

I like Stewart a lot... I think you are overrating his offense, though. His totals still only translate to 158 adjusted points. Seibert had 431, Bouchard 241, Goodfellow 632, and there were a couple others I shouldn't mention.

I'd take #5 and #15 over #12 and #17. (which is roughly where they'd all rank, right?)

seventieslord is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 04:58 AM
  #121
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
I think George Boucher is an excellent talent and a serviceable #1 defenseman in the right system. Good pick. He's another guy who Nalyd and I discussed as a potential first-pairing Seal, but in the end his lack of high-end size/strength (especially with Clancy already in the fold) and speed are issues, though his skill is unquestionable.

I would add that, in general, I have a problem with offensive defensemen who are not, in fact, good skaters. This group includes Boucher, Conacher and other undrafteds. High-skilled defensemen who can control the play are valuable, but if the legs can't hold up their end of the bargain, a defenseman's potential for offensive contribution is somewhat limited and you kind of have to build a team around covering their weaknesses if you expect to get the most out of them. If it for this reason that I cannot classify guys like Boucher and Conacher as "rushing defensemen". They have high-end offensive skills, but if you can't skate, you can't really rush. This applies to any team, though perhaps moreso to an attack spearheaded by Gretzky and Bathgate, who are good skaters and make plays in transition as well as any players in history.

Of course, I believe that the same goes for any area of weakness. Clancy is the complete package offensively and quite skillful and tenacious in his own zone, but he is small and needs a partner who can cover for him. Fortunately he has one, and it was precisely for his completeness that we targeted Vasiliev. Truly complete players are quite rare outside of the 2nd round, so it's not really criticism to point out that certain guys lack in one area or in another.

One more note on Clancy: his first seven peak seasons (23-30) in the NHL were played before the advent of postseason all-star selections. He was selected to the 1st or 2nd team all-star squads (twice each) during all four of his final peak seasons, from 31-34. How many more all-star selections might Clancy have had? A very good argument can be made that he'd have had a run of perhaps ten or eleven straight seasons on the postseason all-star teams, putting him on the same level as the great Earl Seibert. That's how good Clancy was, and it wasn't just for his offense.

What ifs are only worth so much, but I think it's worth noting that the King was a perrenial all-star when such things existed, even though he was actually on the tail end of his career.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 05:11 AM
  #122
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,010
vCash: 500
Since seventieslord has stuck around for heavy debate he must have PM'd the next g.m., The_Hockey_Guy18, must he not have?

Nearly 8 hours into the clock...

VanIslander is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 05:16 AM
  #123
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Jack Stewart is what I'd call a "useful" offensive player in transition. He was a hell of a skater and a fine passer, but that's about it. Similar to Vasiliev, actually, though I think Vasa had more offensive responsibilities (and perhaps a bit more skill) on his teams, specifically on the powerplay. Neither should be mistaken for a high-end offensive defenseman, however, but their combination of skating and passing skills make them useful players in transition.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 05:32 AM
  #124
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 873
I'll be back at 9:30AMET for people I sent offers.

EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
09-25-2007, 06:00 AM
  #125
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
Golden Swallow
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,183
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Cleghorn and Boucher have to be close. 8 all-star team selections to 7, same era, Cleghorn is better by reputation, and went to more finals, and Boucher won more cups. I wanted Cleghorn 80 picks ago, so I'm not gonna say Boucher is better. But if he was a lackluster skater and was still a 4-time norris* winner then he must have been doing a lot of the other stuff well.

I like Stewart a lot... I think you are overrating his offense, though. His totals still only translate to 158 adjusted points. Seibert had 431, (#### edited), Goodfellow 632, and there were a couple others I shouldn't mention.

I'd take #5 and #15 over #12 and #17. (which is roughly where they'd all rank, right?)
I'd question exactly how close they were. Cleghorn won 5 retro Norrises (including NHA) to Boucher's 4, and that discounts the fact that Peg had 2 Hart runner-ups during years Boucher won (which would seem to fly in the face of 2 of Boucher's awards). He was by contemporary accounts faster, more mobile, and more physical than Boucher.

It's also worth mentioning that in the Trail of the Stanley Cup, Boucher wasn't one of the 4 nominated defensemen for the 1893-1926 All-Star Team, while Cleghorn made the nomination and the final cut. Boucher was a great defenseman, but he's no Peg, and he's not that close. That said, I like him very much where you got him.

In regards to Blackjack's offense, I'm not trying to make him out to be Paul Coffey by any stretch, but he isn't completely inept in the opposition's zone. I don't know how the adjusted stats are tabulated, but I'd be willing to bet that they didn't take into account that Stewart missed two high-scoring war years that Seibert didn't, or that Goodfellow played forward for the first half of his career.

I'm not saying Stewart is Seibert or Goodfellow's equal on offense, but the chasm isn't as gaping as you make it out to be.


Last edited by Rowdy Roddy Peeper: 09-25-2007 at 09:12 AM.
Rowdy Roddy Peeper 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 07:03 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.