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.

Lineup Assassination

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2007, 08:55 PM
  #101
Evil Speaker
Registered
 
Evil Speaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NorthVan
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,652
vCash: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
- Lack of offensive defensemen. Your top four defensemen are all defense-oriented guys. None of them could be an offensive catalyst and none are likely to lead rushes. I think this point is clear from the fact that none of your top four defensemen are on your powerplay (aside from Mohns, but all of his highest-scoring years were as a forward). I really like Sjoberg and Colville, but this means your top two offensive defenseman are stuck on the third pair.
I'm not so sure that Earl Seibert wouldnt be able to lead a rush. He was a very consistent (not outstanding) offensive player with good hands, and also is said to be of the best skaters of his era. He's one of the few defensemen in league history that truly have 'the whole package'.


Last edited by Evil Speaker: 11-06-2007 at 09:01 PM.
Evil Speaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 09:05 PM
  #102
vancityluongo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
Detroit Falcons

Coach: Pat Burns

Michel Goulet - Stan Mikita (A) - Gordie Drillon
Woody Dumart - Milt Schmidt (C) - Bobby Bauer
Gilles Tremblay - Ralph Backstrom - Claude Provost
John Ferguson - Kenny Mosdell - Mario Tremblay
Lynn Patrick

Jacques Laperriere - Tom Johnson
Art Ross (A) - Jean-Guy Talbot
Ed Van Impe (A) - Glen Harmon
Larry Hillman

Frank Brimsek
Roy Worters
Glenn Resch


Some hindsight please?
One of my favorites. Very, very strong down the middle. Solid leadership, scoring...well you name it. Pretty much everything from your top two lines, although like Portage, you won't be "dynamic" at any of those aspects. I love your 3rd line especially. Tremblay is one guy I really badly wanted. And both Provost and Backstrom were great too.

Your defense isn't all that spectacular, but it's solid. I like your top 4. Not really big names, but they'll get the job done. Ross will really help your scoring, and he's a guy who I think gets underrated. On the backend, you have once again, solid but not really spectacular goaltending. Brimsek will never be called a top goalie ever, but he's a legit ATD starter. With Pat Burns, you'll have a guy who knows how to coach, and is one of the better ones in this draft, IMHO.

Overall, I like the balance your team has. Nice work.

vancityluongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 09:09 PM
  #103
The_Hockey_Guy18
 
The_Hockey_Guy18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Coach: Teddy Nolan

#33 Patrick Roy
#1 Dave Kerr

#7 Paul Coffey (A)-#52 Adam Foote
#24 Doug Wilson (A)-#4 Dave Burrows
#43 Al Iafrate-#23 Petr Svoboda

#11 Joe Malone-#10 Dale Hawerchuk (A)-#8 Teemu Selanne
#6 Ace Bailey-#7 Neal Broten-#7 Joe Mullen
#17 Tomas Sandstrom-#14 Kent Nilsson-#12 Hakan Loob
#9 Adam Graves (C)-#9 Dan Bain-#92 Rick Tocchet (A)

#39 Brian Skrudland, #15 Goldie Prodgers, #4 Barry Ashbee

To reiterate what I said with my team: When you've got two goaltenders this good, you don't need a back-up. I'll reiterate past comments that I would never take a goalie in the first round, because there's so little to choose between the best in this draft. Roy's No. 2 on my list (behind Roy), and you can make a case for him at No. 1 all-time, especially in the playoffs. You didn't need an upper-tier back-up, but you got one anyways.

You shouldn't have any problem finding defencemen to play on your power play. Coffey, Iafrate, Wilson and Svoboda all have talent. Coffey-Foote is a very intriguing combo. And having Burrows as a partner will allow Wilson to pinch in the offensive zone. I said it before: I have big concerns about Svoboda-Iafrate as a pairing. I think it's gong to be exposed. I'd suggest moving Ashbee into the line-up, and relegating Iafrate or Svoboda to No. 7. But my fellow GMs can tell you that I'm not sold on Iafrate's inconsistencies. Bottom line is I don't think your defence is going to be too intimidating in its own zone.

Your forward lines might need a tweek. Malone's better at C, and Nilsson mostly played LW, so that might be a switch. Malone-Hawerchuk-Broten at C, and Nilsson-Bailey-Sandstrom looks a little better. I think Hawerchuk's a middling second line C, and Broten's a good two-way centre. Broten's likely the best defensive forward on your team. Ace Bailey's topped our list for No. 2 LW's due to his skill and toughness. He's the one guy in your top six forwards who's going to have a legit physical presence.

If you keep Sandstrom and Nilsson together, it might be the least liked line in the draft. Neither was popular with teammates; Sandstrom because of his penchant for turtling; Nilsson because he wasn't the most likeable guy to ever play the game. Loob's one of the better No. 3 offensive RWs in the draft. Great shot and a guy who could make a difference offensively. Nilsson is a potential game-breaker, he has terrific skill, while Sandstrom's offensive ability is very underrated.

Love the fourth line. We wanted Graves for our second line LW spot to play with Buddy and Taylor. Tocchet's one of my all-time favourites. It's not a true defensive line, but it'll be one of the best forechecking lines in the draft, one of the most physical lines in the draft, and they can score, too.

This is a team that has excellent offence and excellent goaltending. Roy's going to have a lot of work. Not just because he'll play a lot of games, but because there aren't a lot of defensive stalwards on this team. Dartmouth and Gwinnett might be the league leaders in shots for per game, but they'll also allow the most shots on goal.

I'm not a fan of Ted Nolan as an ATD coach (you're picking him based on three seasons in the show) but he should like the talent and offensive aggression on this team. Guys like Graves and Tocchet are Ted Nolan types.
First off, thanks for the lengthy, but very helpful review GBC.

To start, I think I might have one of the top goaltending tandems in the draft, which will help with, like you said, the lack of strong defensive players on my team. They won't leave Roy totally out to dry, but if it comes to that, he should be able to bail our team out most of the time. At first, I regretted taking Roy with my first pick, but it allowed me to build an offensively strong team, without having to worry about my keeper. Getting Kerr as a back-up was a bonus, especially at where I got him in the draft.

My defense, although not great defensively, can still hold it's own in that department. As well, pairing Foote with Coffey and Burrows with Wilson allows my top two D to have the freedom they need to make a significant impact offensively, without having to worry about leaving Roy hanging. Not to mention, both Coffey and Wilson are no slouches on D either, and can do the job if Teddy needs them to play a little defense. As for the third pairing of Iafrate-Svoboda, this is a tough decision for me. Taking Iafrate out wouldn't hurt too much, besides the amount his shot would be missed on our powerplay. Dropping Svoboda to number 7 might be whats best in the long run, but we'll see how the first few games go, and I'll make a decision then. Svoboda-Ashbee would be great as a 3rd pairing, IMO, but against a strong defensive team, we could definetely use Iafrate's skillset. This decision will mainly depend on who our opponent is.

I thought I had my forward lines figured out, but you bring up some new points to me. If I were to put Malone at center and Nilsson at left wing, the line combinations would be tough to come up with. My fourth line isn't changing at the moment, and I really like the balance of my second line, with Bailey providing a physical presence with a touch of offense, Broten being the defensive conscience of the line, and Mullen being the main offensive threat. I think they could really do some damage. However, this leaves me with the decision on whether to put Malone or Hawerchuck on the third line. Hawerchuk looks to be a better fit for the line, IMO, as he would be a great pass first player on a line with two underrated scorers. This would leave me with a top line of Nilsson-Malone-Selanne, which may not be the best first line in the draft by any means, but would provide a nice scoring touch, on a team with 4 solid lines. Right now, that looks to be the best combinations. Some might question Hawerchuk down on the 3rd line, but with the strength of my three other lines, I could see Teddy rolling the lines evenly to start. All of this will definetely but subjected to change though, and any other suggestions would be great.

My powerplay units will stay the same for now, and depending on the output from each player, we can go from there. Imagine, Selanne set up down low, Hawerchuk on the half boards, Malone in the slot, with Coffey pinching from the blue line, and Iafrate waiting to launch a rocket. Now thats a scary powerplay, if you ask me.

And imagine a match-up of us and Gwinnett? Both teams would get upwards of 60 shots in every game. That would be a hell of an exciting series.


Last edited by The_Hockey_Guy18: 11-07-2007 at 10:22 AM.
The_Hockey_Guy18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 09:13 PM
  #104
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
Detroit Falcons

Coach: Pat Burns

Michel Goulet - Stan Mikita (A) - Gordie Drillon
Woody Dumart - Milt Schmidt (C) - Bobby Bauer
Gilles Tremblay - Ralph Backstrom - Claude Provost
John Ferguson - Kenny Mosdell - Mario Tremblay
Lynn Patrick

Jacques Laperriere - Tom Johnson
Art Ross (A) - Jean-Guy Talbot
Ed Van Impe (A) - Glen Harmon
Larry Hillman

Frank Brimsek
Roy Worters
Glenn Resch


Some hindsight please?
I'll do a quick overview:

Strengths

Offense from your top-6: Your team will generate a lot of offense from your top-6. I've said it before, but I'm not a fan of Drillon, but that said, with Mikita and Goulet you have the opportunity for a fairly dynamic first line. The Krauts on the second are one of the, if not the, top second lines in the draft.

Good Team Defense Concept: With a solid group of defensive defenders (Laperriere, Johnson, Talbot and Van Impe) and an excellent checking line of Tremblay-Backstrom-Provost, Brimsek's life will be a little easier. Plus the Krauts were no slouches in their own zone either. It's a lineup that Burns should enjoy working with.

Good Team Toughness Up Front: With Mikita, Schmidt, Dumart, Ferguson and the Tremblays up front, the Eagles will be a tough team to play against, especially for opposing defenders.

Team Chemistry: Though it may be overrated in the long run, in the short run your team definitely has an advantage considering how much many of your players have played together.

Weaknesses

Offense/Toughness from the Defense: Your top pairing, while very good defensively, aren't known for being great physically or offensively (though they were both great in transistion). I'm not sold on Ross (not sure why there is so much of a premium on him compared to a Hod Stuart, or even a Si Griffis to a certain extent). Talbot was said to be physical and was decent offensively, though he wasn't overly big, so it may be a concern he's required to step up and play physical especially with some of the big forwards in the division. Plus, outside of one big season, he wasn't a huge point producer, he was more of a transitional player between Harvey and J.C. Trembley. Van Impe is the first real banger on your team, but he's not a guy you'd want playing too many minutes.

IMO, it's the only glaring weakness on your team. The only other thing I can think of off hand is Mosdell seems to be a bit of a waste between Ferguson and Tremblay, and I can't see him producing much playing between those two (though I don't think you're expecting that line to produce much anyway ).

You have definitely put together a very solid team top to bottom and should it expect it to do well this draft.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 09:50 PM
  #105
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,354
vCash: 500
Here’s my take on the Detroit Falcons.

STRENGTHS

- Very good top line. Mikita, the speedy playmaker, should have great chemistry with Goulet, a fast goal-scorer with a great ability to find openings on the ice. Mikita always gets underrated as a goal-scorer (most people don’t realize he was runner-up in goals three times). Drillon provides some more offense while Mikita provides great defense (regardless of whether you pick the tougher PIM machine version, or the disciplined positional Mikita). The one issue is that Drillon, though a dynamic scorer, was slow and bad defensively. Let’s hope that Drillon will be able to keep up with his linemates. (Mikita spent most of his prime with Wharram and Mohns, both of whom were incredible skaters).

- Reuniting the Kraut Line. They’re good enough to be a #1 line in a 28-team draft and look fantastic as a second unit. Schmidt, the power centre, provides the strength, the defense, and is the offensive catalyst. Dumart provides great defensive coverage and will do a great job battling for lose pucks, while Bauer will be a good finisher.

- Nearly perfect third line. The Tremblay/Backstrom/Provost trio is one of the best third lines we’ve ever had in an ATD. Provost is one of the top five or ten purely defensive forwards of all-time, and Backstrom isn’t too far behind him. Despite a lack of size, they can shut down nearly any opponents in a disciplined, responsible manner. They have good offense too (Claude Provost finished 2nd to Hull in goals one year, and Backstrom showed some real talent in the WHA and on the Kings despite being well past his prime). Tremblay is an adequate third liner, but the chemistry and significant PO experience makes him a good contributor to this line.

- Very good goaltending. I’d probably rank Brimsek somewhere around #10 all-time among goalies. He was a first- or second-team all-star eight years in arrow (excluding WWII), which is an amazing balance between consistency and dominance. Has a pretty good playoff record and is used to playing on high-scoring teams. I’ve already said earlier that Worters is one of the biggest steals in the draft, he won a Hart and was a two-time all-star playing behind some lousy teams.

WEAKNESSES

- Not a lot of offense from the blueline. Both Laperriere and Johnson were primarily defensive players. Though they were decent playmakers, neither of them can realistically be expected to be a major offensive contributor. Jean-Guy Talbot didn’t score a lot either, and even Art Ross’s totals are less impressive than one would expect (based on how high-scoring the NHA was). The lack of a good offensive blueliner is particularly problematic because your team has so many fast, skilled forwards and it seems like there isn’t a high-scoring defenseman to support them. A dynamic offensive defenseman, who can either join the rush or launch an effective counterattack through a good transition game, would allow your team to maximize its offense. I think your team will still be among the highest-scoring in the draft, but there will still be some unfulfilled scoring potential.

- Lack of defensive depth. Not a huge weakness, but Ed Van Impe is quite slow and spends a lot of time in the penalty box. Glen Harmon is decent, but one of his two all-star appearances was from 1945 (and can be heavily discounted). He seems solid at everything but nothing really stands out. (Maybe he’s a Glen Wesley type, 12 safe, steady minutes per game?). I think that a below-average third pair puts more pressure on your top four blueliners, who already need to step up to help support the offense.

My conclusion should be obvious based on my comments. I love your team’s forwards. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that you have the best, and most well-balanced group of forwards in the entire draft. You have two great goaltenders and Brimsek should feel right at home playing behind a great offensive team. And, while I didn’t specifically comment about this, all of your defenseman are at least good defensively. Still, the lack of a top offensive defenseman hurts, and the lack of defensive depth places a lot of pressure on your top two defense pairs. I think you’re one Leetch/MacInnis away from being my favourite team in the draft. Still, I’d hate to run into your team in the playoffs.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2007, 11:12 PM
  #106
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Thanks for the two reviews so far, gentlemen. I definitely want to come back to address those comments in full, but it is just too late tonight.

One point that caught my eye, though, was about the selection of Nicklas Lidstrom with Ted Lindsay still on the board. You are aware that my pick was skipped, correct? I was surprised the draft got going so soon after I signed up, and before I knew it I was skipped and six picks had been made. Any team-building strategy I had went out the window. I had no choice but to take the most elite talent I could still get. To boot, I had to do it quickly because another pick could be made any second, making the talent pool even shallower. I had to take who I felt was the BPA.

Looking at forwards, there is little to choose from between the elite 2nd tier of Messier, Esposito, Bossy, Mikita, Morenz, Clarke, Yzerman, Jagr, Lindsay, Trottier, Sakic, Kharlamov and Schmidt. They could almost go in any order. So, knowing I drafted in 13 more spots, with six of these guys still available, I gambled that one would be available. I got Lidstrom who is officially the 6th defenseman picked, technically 7th because Robinson was picked before him.... and is that far from his true standing among all-time defensemen? Not at all. I actually don't see a better defenseman drafted after him, nor a worse one drafted before. (unless you count Robinson) - so, I got the 6th best defenseman and I got him 6th. I lucked out that that pick was not a disaster for me. Then, look down to my next pick at 38th. Lo and behold, who was picked in 4 of the past 5 picks? the rest of the 2nd tier elite forwards. So, accepting that I could not have one of them, what was I to do? Geoffrion, Kurri... even Cook, they'd all be a major reach at 38th. So I took a goalie. Best goalie avaiable, IMO. The last of the consensus "big 8"... and he was the 8th goalie picked so he was not a reach either. I managed to avert disaster.

So back to Lindsay... if you were aware my pick was made 7 picks later, then it would be a fair question. If not, you mean to tell me you thought I should take him 19th? That's a major reach for him, is it not? That said, I'd have been delighted to get him (or any of the above) at 38th but it just wasn't to be. I had to specialize in defense and goaltending and hope to get significant talent at forward. I did just that with Dionne. Say what you will about him, (I'm not a fan either and I get irritated at how he's revered for having so many points) but he is a great value at 75th. He's every bit as talented as any of the above... he just lacks Messier's elite leadership... Clarke's dirtiness.... Trottier's all-around game.... Jagr's size.... Sakic's clutch play.... Lindsay's everything.... Pretty much a stop-gap #1 forward, but the best I could get. You've gotta skimp in one area; you can't be rich in all three.

Anyway, I guess I kinda rambled but I hope in a roundabout way I managed to address that point. I promise my responses to your other points won't all be this wordy!

Goodnight.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 02:20 AM
  #107
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
My review of the Montreal Canadiens:

Starting from the top, I think Al Arbour is the second-greatest coach in NHL history and obviously he's my favorite coach. Nalyd and I briefly kicked around the idea of taking Radar in the 11th round after Marty Barry disappeared, though ultimately we decided (correctly, I believe) that taking our last crack at a strong second line center was more important. Arbour is both a great tactician and a great motivator, and you got him for a steal.

Your top line is a good unit, though definitely not one of the league's top lines. I like Newsy a lot and think he is still somewhat underrated in this format. I'm not as big a fan of Cournoyer, though he is certainly a viable 1st liner. Simmer is very much on the low-end of 1st line left wings, but then it's not like you took him in the 3rd round. His peak as an elite goal-scorer was short (basically two seasons, though he cracked 40 goals on one other occasion), probably due to the the almost unwatchable leg injury he suffered in 1981, I believe it was. Also, I love him because he was drafted by the Seals. At any rate, Montreal's 1st line is a well-built mixture of talent, speed and grit. You will suffer some injury problems/inconsistency from Simmer, but the unit as a whole should be fairly reliable going both ways.

Your second line is one of the nicer looking units in the draft, though I think Vic Hadfield (even given the chemistry with Ratelle) was kind of unnecessary considering you already had Hooley Smith on the other wing. Hadfield developed into a tricky shooter after he learned to fire the old drop shot, but he really had a 1 year spike that can be considered ATD scoringline good. Again, as with Simmer, you get what you pay for. I like Ratelle a lot and think he's clearly one of the best second line centers in the draft. Hooley Smith is not a huge scorer in this format, but he was a consistent offensive threat to go along with being a strong checker and a tough, mean competitor. I don't think Hadfield's toughness is necessary with Smith on the line, but I also don't see anyone else on the roster I'd move up in favor of big Vic. Hadfield's potential "character concerns" concerning the 1972 Summit Series are overblown.

The third line is a nice looking unit. Marcotte is a strong, determined 2-way player who's got a little bit of that Claude Lemieux in him, in that he always seemed better and more visible in the playoffs. Jarvis is an excellent defensive center. Pit Martin is another strong 2-way guy who plays a tough, gritty game, and really competes. This isn't one of the top shutdown lines of the draft, but the defense is good and they're all hard-nosed players. You can expect some scoring from the wings, as well. Overall, a strong 2-way unit. In the top half of the league.

You may not be pleased with the selection of Troy Murray, but for a 4th liner, he's pretty darned good. Your 4th line is going to provide a lot of jam when the going gets tough.

You've said it yourself, but I think Montreal's achilles heel may be Rob Ramage. Broda is excellent and reliable and the top and bottom pairings are outstanding units relative to the rest of the league, but Ramage is not the player I'd pair with Marcel Pronovost. You've got size covered, but he's a guy that high-end second and even third liners are going to pick on. Against a team like Montreal, I would definitely lean towards breaking up (as you have suggested we do anyway) Oakland's Gretzky-Bathgate 1st line duo and attacking with Andy Bathgate what I view as a defensively weak 2nd pairing. Given the obvious strength of your top pairing, I think this is a tactic you may see repeated by a number of teams. Neither Hajt nor Barilko are going to look any better on a 2nd pairing, in my opinion (shame about Barilko because he perhaps had the talent, but his career was just too short), so it may be something around which Arbour may want to scheme a bit, with maybe a lock on the right wing (where your wingers are stronger as checkers). I dunno; it's something to think about.

At any rate, Ramage is the only glaring wart on the squad, as I see it. On the whole, the team is quite well-built and balanced and one of my favorite squads in the draft. You aren't going to have the highest-scoring team because the wingers are on the lower end almost across the board, but if you can plug that hole on the 2nd pairing, this is a team almost without defensive weakness. Yes, I think a right wing lock would serve them well, and Arbour is a coach who can pull that off.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 07:18 AM
  #108
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Here's a "short" review of the Guelph Biltomores.

STRENGTHS

- One of the best top lines in the draft. Hull and Boucher is an outstanding combination as it combines the greatest goal-scorer in hockey history (IMO) with a top-ten playmaker that had a good defensive game. (Boucher is pretty similar to Oates, but was better defensively). Nedomansky provides some additional goal-scoring ability on what is already one of the most potent offensive lines in the draft.

- Speed. This team has great speed at all positions. With Hull, Boucher, Smith, Mosienko, Sjoberg and Mohns leading the way, opponents will have a hard time catching up with any line you put on the ice.

- Great defensive defensemen. Earl Seibert was like the Rod Langway of his era, except he was stronger, tougher, and his prime last much longer. Opponents simply won't score very much when he's on the ice. Coulter is a nasty, tough shutdown defenseman that is very underrated. He was one of the toughest and most defensively-conscious players of his era and most people forget he was a four-time all-star. Brewer is another very good defensive player that has a bit of an edge to his game. Mohns was big for his era but was a great skater and a terrific positional player. I don't know too much about Sjoberg or Colville's defensive games, so I'm assuming they're around average. Overall this is one of the best defensive bluelines in the draft.

- Strength down the middle. Boucher was a steal at 108; I said before he was like Adam Oates, but with a better defensive game, and I still don't think that does justice to him. Ted Kennedy is one of the best leaders and highest-scoring playoff performers in league history (relative to his peers) and played a tough two-way game. Kurtenbach provides some size and toughness, while Stanfield provides consistent all-around play to stabilize the fourth line.

WEAKNESSES

- Lack of experience for goalies. Your three netminders have played a combined 47 games in the playoffs and only one of them (Chuck Rayner) has posted as many as four wins in a single playoff year. Your goalies are good for the regular season (and are underrated from an all-time perspective) but there is a serious lack of experience in the playoffs.

- Lack of offensive defensemen. Your top four defensemen are all defense-oriented guys. None of them could be an offensive catalyst and none are likely to lead rushes. I think this point is clear from the fact that none of your top four defensemen are on your powerplay (aside from Mohns, but all of his highest-scoring years were as a forward). I really like Sjoberg and Colville, but this means your top two offensive defenseman are stuck on the third pair.

- Lack of secondary scoring. Aside from your top line and Sid Smith, there are no elite scorers on your team. (Kennedy could light it up in the playoffs, which is more important obviously, but some regular scoring is needed too). If your top line gets shut down, your team will really struggle to score. (Fortunately, you have one of the best top lines in the draft so this isn't likely, but it's still possible).

Overall, Pappyline, this is your best team so far. Your team's excellent defensive blueliners should be able to neutralize most opponents while your speed and devastating top line should give you enough offense to win low-scoring games. Your team also has a rare combination of speed and toughness (favouring the former, but still a good mix of both). The lack of experienced playoffs goalies hurts, but they are protected by a great blueline, and you have perhaps the best captain for the circumstances in Ted Kennedy. Your biggest problem is that your team relies too heavily on the top line, though this could be addressed (at least to some extent) by some lineup shuffling.
HO, thanks for the excellent analysis.

I agree that goaltending is likely the biggest perceived weakness on my team. I picked my starting goalie late as I got caught watching as all the top goalies were picked. At that point, I decided to focus on other positions. You are correct in saying that my goalies do not have a lot of playoff experience but that was due to playing on weak teams. When Rayner & Rollins had the opportunity they made the most of it. In 49-50, Rayner took a medicore NY team to the 7th game of the cup final against powerhouse Detroit. It should be pointed out that Rayner also missed 3 peak years serving in WW!!. Rollins backstopped Leafs to a cup in 50-51 and was the main reason a weak Chicago took Montreal to 7 games in 52-53.

Regarding Sjoberg, the main reason I picked him was to play the point on my #1 PP unit. He was known as the little general due to his ability to control the game. Mohns, Seibert & Brewer also had decent offensive skills from the blueline.

My 4th forward line & 3rd defense pair will probably not play much as a unit as I drafted players here to fill out PP & Pk units.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 08:21 AM
  #109
Rick Middleton
Registered User
 
Rick Middleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 71,939
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rick Middleton
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
GWINETT GLADIATORS
-Lots of reviews on your team so far!
-Let’s start with goaltending… IMO, Vanbiesbrook is definitely underrated: he was indeed much better than many of his peers at the crucial operation that is… stopping pucks. Nevermind that he played on a platoon for most of his career : he isn’t your starter. Vezina, as with some older goalies, comes with question marks in regards to endurance, so I believe having Beezer as your backup will help him A LOT. He belongs in the Top-5 as far as backups are concerned. Vezina is not an ace in this draft, but goalies aren’t going against each other : they’re going against the opposing teams when your team falters to stop them before a shot.
-Like most said… Your team cruelly lacks defensive awareness in the top-6, and they don’t seem to me like a squad who will control the puck extremely well in the offensive zone. In a non-possession game (as in, shot, save, rebound, outless pass, rush…), your team will come out big ; but they might have problem sustaining pressure in the offensive zone.
-I like Cowley/Bondra, pretty good as a secondary scoring threat. Or even Cowley/Shutt. I strongly suggest against moving Bondra down on the third line : I learnt this the hard way last draft.
- Brian Leetch with Steve Smith reinforces the notion that your team will be A LOT about puck movement from one zone to another. I don’t know which Bowman will coach your team : hoping for him that it’s the late-era Bowman, as he’s gonna lose his hair with this 1st pairing (at times).One thing is sure : you’re gonna have some solid PP QB’ing from your defensive corps. And I don’t know a thing about Trugubov (for now).
- I’m sceptical about Scott Young on your checking line.
Thanks for the review MXD. To answer some of your questions
  • I'm not sure of Bondra's effectiveness on a 3rd line, hence I would be hesitant to move him down. I have a revised tougher lineup for larger teams, adding Nilan and Jonathan on the 4th line, moving Verbeek up to the 1st line and scratching Hedberg and Young. That should address the toughness issue.
  • Scott Young was a great checker, an extremely effective PK'r, had speed to burn and a good playoff performer. He would normally be a 3rd line type of player but on an ATD team he fits more on a 4th line.
  • Given that he played virtually every game for his team and died on the ice trying to overcome TB I have no problem with Vezina carrying the load for my team. That being said, JVB was drafted for a reason, and that is to spell Vezina at times. I'd see them having a 55-27 game split in today's NHL. Enough games for JVB to make an impact and Vezina to establish himself as the #1. If one falters, the other is always there.
  • I certainly won't be winning games with D. I know my first two lines are built for scoring, so I'm looking at a quick transition game. My D is built specifically for that. I'd rather players who can skate and move the puck than slower defenseman who can only hit. I pondered taking some of those type to balance my team but they simply wouldn't fit in. A team of jackrabbits with some turtles made no sense.
  • Ivan Tregubov (http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_pl....asp?p_id=t009) 4 time Soviet All Star, IIHF Top Defenseman in 1958, right handed shooting defenseman, Sologubov's defensive partner, fairly large for his time (6'1" 183 ~= 6'3 205 today), scored 29 goals in 100 games on national team so decent offensive talent, USSR Hall of Fame in 1956

__________________

Last edited by Rick Middleton: 11-07-2007 at 08:29 AM.
Rick Middleton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 09:31 AM
  #110
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Middleton View Post
Thanks for the review MXD. To answer some of your questions
[*]Given that he played virtually every game for his team and died on the ice trying to overcome TB I have no problem with Vezina carrying the load for my team. That being said, JVB was drafted for a reason, and that is to spell Vezina at times. I'd see them having a 55-27 game split in today's NHL. Enough games for JVB to make an impact and Vezina to establish himself as the #1. If one falters, the other is always there.
Beezer could play even more. He's THAT good. Would have been my pick, should I have not decided to gear my team so heavily towards playoffs. Much better than many guys selected ahead of him as far as the regular season is concerned. Behind Rollins in that regard, but ahead of Richter (regular season...), Barrasso (some great seasons, and LOTS of meh seasons) and Liut (taken after Beezer, but they ain't really close, actually). Yeah... I like Beezer that much. There aren't many contemporaries of Beezer that I would take ahead of him in regards to regular season. Obviously, Roy and Belfour. Might be forgetting someone there.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 09:34 AM
  #111
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,612
vCash: 500
Guelph + short comment on Sherbrooke

Guelph Biltmores
-I remember writing that your team was my favourite in the mid-draft analysis.
-Everything has been said about your first line.
-Teeder is more than adequate as a 2nd liner (euphemism)… Good job in reuniting him with Sid Smith, but Mosienko is a question mark to me. Teeder might have to do some extra work in the corners. This said, this line isn’t bad at all – Hey, I gotta find a weakness, you know!
-I’m a bit uneasy doing a review of your team, considering you saw some of your guys play, and that I obviously didn’t. But… I have the feeling your 3rd would be my 4th and your 4th would be my 3rd, if I was the Head Coach. Or at the very least, Marshall and Stanfield would be on the 3rd line (I would leave MacKell there). Can you help me on this?
-Your D… The GM’s perception of how Mohns and Carl Brewer will be able to effectively lead a rush could determine whether you win your division or not. I think both could… Sometimes. At least, Brewer won’t retire every 10 games with Badger behind the bench. Keep him happy. You need him.
-Your goaltending corps is solid. Al Rollins might be the best “regular” season backup available for this draft. This said… things goes downhill for the playoffs. I would have used a “playoff backup” a la Mike Vernon for backing up Rayner. Good thing Charlie Hodge has some experience, but do you really want Hodge as your go-to-guy in the playoffs?
-I know Bobby Hull used to log A LOT of IceTime, but why is he taking a regular shift on the PK? 1st + 1st wave of PP means lots of icetime, and it’s not as if you didn’t have any other competent penalty killers on your team. It’s pretty obvious that he’ll be used on the PK whenever your team is down in the 3rd period.
- Bottom-line : How will other GM’s will perceive your D (in regards to transition play) could mean whether you’re a first-round bye-team or an home-advantage team. Yes… Your team is that good, with really minor weaknesses, and a first line that will control many games.
Castors de Sherbrooke
- Only one comment, as I’ll do a more complete analysis later. I remember Arbez noting that players from Quebec were more likely to be Top-6 guys, rather than Bot-6. My 4 centers are from La Belle Province. I have ridiculous depth on C though ( Dave Keon centering a 3rd line has been noted as an anomaly, but Phil Watson centering a 4th is even more of an anomaly. Not that Watson’s style isn’t fit for a 4th line, but he centered leading goalscorers of the NHL thrice during his tenure, including one who’s widely considered the third worst player to lead the league in goals amongst retired players – Lynn Patrick. And it wasn’t in the War Years. The other two went undrafted. Rightfully.)
I’m not taking a shot at Patrick. He belongs in this draft, and is a steal at 670.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 10:15 AM
  #112
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Beezer could play even more. He's THAT good. Would have been my pick, should I have not decided to gear my team so heavily towards playoffs. Much better than many guys selected ahead of him as far as the regular season is concerned. Behind Rollins in that regard, but ahead of Richter (regular season...), Barrasso (some great seasons, and LOTS of meh seasons) and Liut (taken after Beezer, but they ain't really close, actually). Yeah... I like Beezer that much. There aren't many contemporaries of Beezer that I would take ahead of him in regards to regular season. Obviously, Roy and Belfour. Might be forgetting someone there.
Barrasso didn't have "meh" seasons. He was usually a highly above-average, if not elite, goalie for almost all of his career. Richter too. I'd put Vernon into their league as well. In fact, I'd put him ahead thanks to his three visits to the finals, two cups, smythe, and vezina runner-up. If you ask me, after the obvious Roy and Belfour (and Hasek, if you count him as part of that generation, after all, he's the same age), it goes Vernon, Barrasso, Richter, Joseph, Vanbiesbrouck, Liut, although not much separates each one from the next one on the list.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 11:19 AM
  #113
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Guelph Biltmores
-I remember writing that your team was my favourite in the mid-draft analysis.
-Everything has been said about your first line.
-Teeder is more than adequate as a 2nd liner (euphemism)… Good job in reuniting him with Sid Smith, but Mosienko is a question mark to me. Teeder might have to do some extra work in the corners. This said, this line isn’t bad at all – Hey, I gotta find a weakness, you know!
-I’m a bit uneasy doing a review of your team, considering you saw some of your guys play, and that I obviously didn’t. But… I have the feeling your 3rd would be my 4th and your 4th would be my 3rd, if I was the Head Coach. Or at the very least, Marshall and Stanfield would be on the 3rd line (I would leave MacKell there). Can you help me on this?
-Your D… The GM’s perception of how Mohns and Carl Brewer will be able to effectively lead a rush could determine whether you win your division or not. I think both could… Sometimes. At least, Brewer won’t retire every 10 games with Badger behind the bench. Keep him happy. You need him.
-Your goaltending corps is solid. Al Rollins might be the best “regular” season backup available for this draft. This said… things goes downhill for the playoffs. I would have used a “playoff backup” a la Mike Vernon for backing up Rayner. Good thing Charlie Hodge has some experience, but do you really want Hodge as your go-to-guy in the playoffs?
-I know Bobby Hull used to log A LOT of IceTime, but why is he taking a regular shift on the PK? 1st + 1st wave of PP means lots of icetime, and it’s not as if you didn’t have any other competent penalty killers on your team. It’s pretty obvious that he’ll be used on the PK whenever your team is down in the 3rd period.
- Bottom-line : How will other GM’s will perceive your D (in regards to transition play) could mean whether you’re a first-round bye-team or an home-advantage team. Yes… Your team is that good, with really minor weaknesses, and a first line that will control many games.
Castors de Sherbrooke
- Only one comment, as I’ll do a more complete analysis later. I remember Arbez noting that players from Quebec were more likely to be Top-6 guys, rather than Bot-6. My 4 centers are from La Belle Province. I have ridiculous depth on C though ( Dave Keon centering a 3rd line has been noted as an anomaly, but Phil Watson centering a 4th is even more of an anomaly. Not that Watson’s style isn’t fit for a 4th line, but he centered leading goalscorers of the NHL thrice during his tenure, including one who’s widely considered the third worst player to lead the league in goals amongst retired players – Lynn Patrick. And it wasn’t in the War Years. The other two went undrafted. Rightfully.)
I’m not taking a shot at Patrick. He belongs in this draft, and is a steal at 670.
Thanks for the analysis MXD. You make some good points.

-My 3rd line is a 2 way line with emphasis on checking. My 4th line is special team type players. However you are right in that Marshall would be a better fit as LW on line 3 so I will switch him & Stewart. However, I still prefer the 2-way play of Kurtenbach over Stanfield as centre on the 3rd line.
-I do have an advantage of seeing more players as I have been watching since the mid 50's & based on what I have seen, I am comfortable with the transitional skills of Mohns & Brewer. In his prime, Hull carried the puck up ice a lot & I expect him to do so on this team
-At his peak in the mid 60's, Hull logged a lot of ice time. Played PP & killed penalties plus a double regular shift on occasion. With the talent on this team, I can rest him more especially in the regular season & will likely also use Kurtenbach/Mackell on the PK
-As I mentioned in a previous post, Raynor & Rollins may not have a lot of playoff experience but played well in their few opportunities.
-I agree Hodge was a mistake as my 3rd goalie. There were better playoff goalies available & I blew it.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 01:10 PM
  #114
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Hockey_Guy18 View Post
First off, thanks for the lengthy, but very helpful review GBC.

To start, I think I might have one of the top goaltending tandems in the draft, which will help with, like you said, the lack of strong defensive players on my team. They won't leave Roy totally out to dry, but if it comes to that, he should be able to bail our team out most of the time. At first, I regretted taking Roy with my first pick, but it allowed me to build an offensively strong team, without having to worry about my keeper. Getting Kerr as a back-up was a bonus, especially at where I got him in the draft.

My defense, although not great defensively, can still hold it's own in that department. As well, pairing Foote with Coffey and Burrows with Wilson allows my top two D to have the freedom they need to make a significant impact offensively, without having to worry about leaving Roy hanging. Not to mention, both Coffey and Wilson are no slouches on D either, and can do the job if Teddy needs them to play a little defense. As for the third pairing of Iafrate-Svoboda, this is a tough decision for me. Taking Iafrate out wouldn't hurt too much, besides the amount his shot would be missed on our powerplay. Dropping Svoboda to number 7 might be whats best in the long run, but we'll see how the first few games go, and I'll make a decision then. Svoboda-Ashbee would be great as a 3rd pairing, IMO, but against a strong defensive team, we could definetely use Iafrate's skillset. This decision will mainly depend on who our opponent is.

I thought I had my forward lines figured out, but you bring up some new points to me. If I were to put Malone at center and Nilsson at left wing, the line combinations would be tough to come up with. My fourth line isn't changing at the moment, and I really like the balance of my second line, with Bailey providing a physical presence with a touch of offense, Broten being the defensive conscience of the line, and Mullen being the main offensive threat. I think they could really do some damage. However, this leaves me with the decision on whether to put Malone or Hawerchuck on the third line. Hawerchuk looks to be a better fit for the line, IMO, as he would be a great pass first player on a line with two underrated scorers. This would leave me with a top line of Nilsson-Malone-Selanne, which may not be the best first line in the draft by any means, but would provide a nice scoring touch, on a team with 4 solid lines. Right now, that looks to be the best combinations. Some might question Hawerchuk down on the 3rd line, but with the strength of my three other lines, I could see Teddy rolling the lines evenly to start. All of this will definetely but subjected to change though, and any other suggestions would be great.

My powerplay units will stay the same for now, and depending on the output from each player, we can go from there. Imagine, Selanne set up down low, Hawerchuk on the half boards, Malone in the slot, with Coffey pinching from the blue line, and Iafrate waiting to launch a rocket. Now thats a scary powerplay, if you ask me.

And imagine a match-up of us and Gwinnett? Both teams would get upwards of 60 shots in every game. That would be a hell of an exciting series.
If I had those forward lines to work with, they'd look something like this:

Nilsson-Malone-Selanne
Bailey-Hawerchuk-Mullen
Sandstrom-Broten-Loob

I think Malone's better off at C, and Nilsson's better off at LW. I don't think Hawerchuk's a No. 1 centre at all. I'm a big Hawerchuk fan, he's one of my all-time favourite players, but he'd a good No. 2 in this draft.

I think Broten is really miscast as a No. 2 C. As a No. 3 C, I think he's fine. He makes plays. He's very good defensively. And on a line with Sandstrom and Loob, he has two linemates with very, very heavy shots.

Besides, with Bailey on the left side, you don't have to worry about Broten as the defensive conscience of your second line. As I said before, Bailey topped our list for second line LWs.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 01:14 PM
  #115
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Thanks for the two reviews so far, gentlemen. I definitely want to come back to address those comments in full, but it is just too late tonight.

One point that caught my eye, though, was about the selection of Nicklas Lidstrom with Ted Lindsay still on the board. You are aware that my pick was skipped, correct? I was surprised the draft got going so soon after I signed up, and before I knew it I was skipped and six picks had been made. Any team-building strategy I had went out the window. I had no choice but to take the most elite talent I could still get. To boot, I had to do it quickly because another pick could be made any second, making the talent pool even shallower. I had to take who I felt was the BPA.

Looking at forwards, there is little to choose from between the elite 2nd tier of Messier, Esposito, Bossy, Mikita, Morenz, Clarke, Yzerman, Jagr, Lindsay, Trottier, Sakic, Kharlamov and Schmidt. They could almost go in any order. So, knowing I drafted in 13 more spots, with six of these guys still available, I gambled that one would be available. I got Lidstrom who is officially the 6th defenseman picked, technically 7th because Robinson was picked before him.... and is that far from his true standing among all-time defensemen? Not at all. I actually don't see a better defenseman drafted after him, nor a worse one drafted before. (unless you count Robinson) - so, I got the 6th best defenseman and I got him 6th. I lucked out that that pick was not a disaster for me. Then, look down to my next pick at 38th. Lo and behold, who was picked in 4 of the past 5 picks? the rest of the 2nd tier elite forwards. So, accepting that I could not have one of them, what was I to do? Geoffrion, Kurri... even Cook, they'd all be a major reach at 38th. So I took a goalie. Best goalie avaiable, IMO. The last of the consensus "big 8"... and he was the 8th goalie picked so he was not a reach either. I managed to avert disaster.

So back to Lindsay... if you were aware my pick was made 7 picks later, then it would be a fair question. If not, you mean to tell me you thought I should take him 19th? That's a major reach for him, is it not? That said, I'd have been delighted to get him (or any of the above) at 38th but it just wasn't to be. I had to specialize in defense and goaltending and hope to get significant talent at forward. I did just that with Dionne. Say what you will about him, (I'm not a fan either and I get irritated at how he's revered for having so many points) but he is a great value at 75th. He's every bit as talented as any of the above... he just lacks Messier's elite leadership... Clarke's dirtiness.... Trottier's all-around game.... Jagr's size.... Sakic's clutch play.... Lindsay's everything.... Pretty much a stop-gap #1 forward, but the best I could get. You've gotta skimp in one area; you can't be rich in all three.

Anyway, I guess I kinda rambled but I hope in a roundabout way I managed to address that point. I promise my responses to your other points won't all be this wordy!

Goodnight.
I don't think Lindsay is a reach at all for the top 20. In fact, when raleh and I were projecting for our first round pick, we had it narrowed down to four players: Bourque, Lafleur, Potvin and Messier. But we both really wanted Lindsay.

I do remember that your pick was skipped. Lidstrom was actually the eighth defenceman picked. (Red Kelly was picked before you selected Lidstrom, and I'd run you out of this draft if you picked Lidstrom ahead of Kelly). I think you picked Lidstrom after the Flon landed Bobby Clarke.

I have Lindsay rated in my top 20. In terms of overall players, he's a gimmie for the top 25 ever, and you could make a case for him in the top 20. In terms of building a team, he's a shoo-in for the top 20, and you can make a case for him in the top 15, when you factor leadership, his all-round game and his position.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 01:30 PM
  #116
The_Hockey_Guy18
 
The_Hockey_Guy18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
If I had those forward lines to work with, they'd look something like this:

Nilsson-Malone-Selanne
Bailey-Hawerchuk-Mullen
Sandstrom-Broten-Loob

I think Malone's better off at C, and Nilsson's better off at LW. I don't think Hawerchuk's a No. 1 centre at all. I'm a big Hawerchuk fan, he's one of my all-time favourite players, but he'd a good No. 2 in this draft.

I think Broten is really miscast as a No. 2 C. As a No. 3 C, I think he's fine. He makes plays. He's very good defensively. And on a line with Sandstrom and Loob, he has two linemates with very, very heavy shots.

Besides, with Bailey on the left side, you don't have to worry about Broten as the defensive conscience of your second line. As I said before, Bailey topped our list for second line LWs.
I wouldn't say Broten is that miscast as a second line center, especially considering he'd be playing with two great players in Bailey and Mullen. However, Hawerchuk is most definetely a better players than Broten is, defense aside. With Broten on the third line though, he could definetely provide some much needed defense between Sandstrom and Loob, who are definetely not known for their defensive play, which Hawerchuk wouldn't be able to do. I think I'll follow your suggestion for now, and see how it plays out.

But as I said before, Teddy will be rolling 4 lines to start anyway, so it's not like anyone's losing ice time.

The_Hockey_Guy18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 01:44 PM
  #117
LapierreSports
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 346
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to LapierreSports
[QUOTE=Evil Sather;11093846]
New York Rangers:

Coach: Pat Quinn
Assistant Coach: Jacques Martin

Brian Propp - Jean Beliveau (C) - Harry "Punch" Broadbent
Mats Naslund - Peter Forsberg - Mickey Redmond
Don Maloney - Bob Bourne - Bobby Nystrom (A)
Brian Rolston - Chris Drury - Claude Lemieux
Mike Keane

Mark Howe - Joe Hall
Craig Ludwig (A) - Ebbie Goodfellow
Jerry "King Kong" Korab - Lester Patrick
Paul Reinhart

Billy Smith
Andy Moog

First off, its pretty tough to find a better 1-2 combination at center. Everyone here would dream to have Beliveau and Forsberg as their number 1 and 2 centers. I just finished watching the 56-60 Cup run on VHS and Beliveau was the guy who impressed me the most.

Sure, Punch Broadbent led the league in goals one season but is he really first line materiel ? And I think you are overly excited about Redmond; his quick rise to the top was followed by an equally fast decline. A lot has been said about Redmond that he owed his success to the great playmaking of Delvecchio. Right place at the right time with the right guy ?

At LW, you have pretty much the same guy on your first and second line, altough I am more of a fan of Naslund than Propp, great pick !

Bourne and Nystrom tend to get more credit they deserve because of 2 spectacular plays in the playoffs: an end to end rush by Bourne and an overtime winner by Nystrom. By the way, to do want Wayne Merrick to play with these guys because Maloney seems out of place.

When I look at your defense, it looks a lot like the Falcons D and my D. Solid all around, but unspectacular and I have a lot of trouble evaluating Joe Hall.

You say you have a team of playoff character guys, but will your team even make the playoffs ?

LapierreSports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 01:49 PM
  #118
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Wendel Clark (A) - Nels Stewart - Marcel Dionne
Cy Denneny - Bernie Nicholls - Babe Dye
Dick Duff (A) - Joe Thornton - Steve Thomas
Ryan Smyth - Jamie Langenbrunner - Scott Mellanby

Nicklas Lidstrom (A) - Bobby Baun
Sergei Gonchar - Buck Boucher (C)
Jimmy Watson - Robert Svehla

Bill Durnan
John Ross Roach

extras:
Mike Ricci, F
Peter McNab, F
Dave Ellett, D

gm: seventieslord
coach: Lindy Ruff

I'll be honest with the goaltending: I'm not a big Bill Durnan fan. His regular season run is on par with Hasek and Dryden, but he wasn't as strong in the playoffs. The Habs consistent losses to the Leafs in the playoffs were often a reflection of Broda's outplaying Durnan.

Didn't notice that you picked Roach. Good pick. Solid back-up for this draft.

I think your defence is your strong suit. I look at your defence, and I see one guy who'll be a liability in his own zone: Gonchar. The only thing you're lacking is that six-foot-two, mean, rugged physical defenceman who takes care of his own zone. (Think Adam Foote or Kevin Lowe). Every one of your defencemen can move the puck. Boucher and Baun aren't big, but they're mean and tough. Lidstrom and Watson are terrific in their own zone. I'm not a big Svehla fan, but as far as a No. 6 goes, he won't hurt you.

Your forward lines need tweaks. You have a centre playing right wing (Dionne) and a right wing playing centre (Langenbrunner). Dionne-Stewart-Thornton-Nichols would probably be one of the most potent C corps in the draft. It would leave you without a bonafide checking line, but I don't think you have one now anyways. (Smyth and Langenbrunner aren't the guys you'd expect to see on a shut-down line). Dye's the only RW who's suited to a scoring line role. McNab and Thomas would be a reach for that second line spot.

I'm not sure about Clark as a first line LW, but he has a bullet of a shot and a physical presence. I love Denneny on the second line. Lots of grit and skill. Not big, but he's tough enough to make a scoring grinder's contribution.

McNab was one of the top three 13th forwards available, IMO, along with Steen and Craig Simpson. His multi-position versatility makes him an excellent addition for a team that could use an offensive player.

I think Lindy Ruff is the best coach in the game. This is the type of team I can see him guiding: a mobile defence that can move the puck to the forwards, and forwards who play an offensively aggressive game, with scoring potential from every line.
OK, time to finally reply to this one.

First off, thanks for the compliements re: Ruff, McNab, and Roach.

As for Durnan, he's definitely a lot more decorated in the regular season than in the playoffs. And yes, he was outplayed by Broda. But to be fair, Broda might have outplayed Jesus himself in that run he put together. I guess it's a rookie gamble that a consensus top-10 goalie can take me far, and I hope the other GM's show mercy and look at my whole roster and not just the net if I meet a Smith, Fuhr, or Parent in the playoffs (just a couple examples of lesser goalies with stronger playoff resumes)

Regarding Gonchar, that is a compliment that I have just one defensive liability, not a criticism that I have one, correct? If so, I agree. I like his puck skills and PP ability. He can also really skate and can throw a good bodycheck occasionally. As for the rest, you're right. All solid defensively (all at least above average in that regard, although for Svehla a case could be made that he's merely average in this context), mostly tough, not a heck of a lot of size. Another gamble, I suppose, that toughness trumps size.

As for Svehla, I have more respect for the guy than just about anyone, I think. (see avatar) He led the league in hits the last year they kept track and was a monster shot-blocker. He was like a 45-point scoring Volchenkov for eight seasons. He missed only 6 games during that time too, and was called "the toughest player I've ever seen" by Peter Worrell due to the unreal amount of pain he played through. He is a warrior in the truest sense. Sometimes I feel like I am the only one in the world who realized how good he was.

OK. Forwards. I read that Dionne was also a right winger at times so I thought I could get away with having them there. And Langenbrunner is listed as a center on hockeydb. Although I remember him mostly as a RW, I thought that meant center was his natural position. I was privately quite proud to have every drafted forward in their natural (or familiar) postion. But, if you think I will be better served having moved them to their natural positions, I will take that to heart. You are right that those four centres would be one of, if not the, most potent sets of centres in the league, but taking Dionne off the wing does weaken the right wing. (you're absolutely right, I'd rather not have to have Thomas or McNab as 2nd RW, although they both have 850+ pts) It introduces another conundrum: The idea of having Nicholls center a 3rd or 4th line. While not a major liability, he is not considered the prototypical two-way guy either. I was really hoping to have him in the top-6. It could also lead to Thornton being underused. I mean, I got him for a bottom-6 role because of his size and all-round game, but how many other players have been top-3 in scoring 3+ times? I will ahve to do some soul searching on this one. If I want to keep everyone in natural positions, my range of options isn't exactly vast.

Re: checking lines. I don't have any year-in-year-out Selke threats, but my current bottom-six forwards are all dependable in their own zone. You're correct that I don't have a "shutdown" line... I'd have loved to build one, but all the best specialists got taken either too early, or right before I wanted them. (METZ!) So I'm full of two-way players who forecheck and backcheck with equal gumption. (that's a Lindy Ruff team!) It will have to be defense by committee, plus heavy reliance on three (or four?) elite defensive defensemen.

Clark is on the first line due to initial criticism regarding the one-dimensionality of my original configuration (denneny stewart dionne) - it's a reach for him, but he's also not there just because of talent. If I move Dionne, a passer, into the middle, I'd be more comfortable having Clark there instead of having them on opposite wings. Still, not ideal.

So in conclusion, I take your comments seriously and will most likely adjust accordingly; at the same time, if I have demonstrated there is method to my madness, then more power to me!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 02:04 PM
  #119
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Posting some thoughts about the lineups. Starting from the end of the roster thread, going up. From Regina to Ottawa this time.


Regina Wildhearts

-You shocked me, and some other GM’s for sure, when you picked Niklas Lidstrom. I can’t stop thinking about how your first line would look if it had Ted Lindsay instead of Wendel Clark on it.
- On the other hand… you really need Lidstrom on your defense. I can understand that a team would like to have a balanced Top-4 on defense, but are you sure Bobby Baun can do the job on the 1st pairing? A player that wasn’t a 1st pairing guy in history should NEVER be featured on a 1st pairing in an ATD, unless the said player is Tom Johnson - really the only one I can think of right now. You might want to move Boucher on your 1st pairing, even if it might unbalance your D slightly. Jimmy Watson and Robert Svehla won’t do lots, but they won’t hurt you.
- Is there a weirdest forward pairing than Dick Duff playing with Joe Thornton?
- Speaking of Thornton, he will give you some pretty good playmaking for a 3rd line, and while he could use better goal scoring wingers in an ATD context, your 3rd will obviously give you some goals.
- Dionne is playing RW?!?! Langebrunner is playing C?!?! I know Langenbrunner played Center at some point of his career, but as far as C’s are concerned, he just don’t cut it in ATD. Besides, Langenbrunner was better as a RW. Which could lead us to a dreaded Duff – Thornton – Langenbrunner 3rd line.
- You’re gonna have some solid goaltending. The Mirror Man is a definite Top-10, and J.R.R is an above-average backup in this draft.
- The success of your team will depend a lot how your players will interact with each others. If the GM’s think your offense is only average when it comes to “click factor”, your team will definitely score goals, because the potential is there, especially on the power play. Besides, your 4th will give you quite its share of goals. However, the lack of a true checking line combined a lack of defensive awareness on your Top-6 could hurt you in a division where every team has solid two-way play or toughness (and in some cases, both) on their Top-6, and throughout their lineup for that matter.
Regarding Lindsay/Lidstrom, I've already addressed, but I see there's another reply so I may have more to say on the topic later. I must admit though, you sure have me thinking as well, about a Lindsay-Stewart-Dionne (or Lindsay-Dionne-Dye) first line. Would I redo it? Not sure either way. I got a great defenseman when I could have had Lindsay. Would I have gotten Lidstrom at 38th? If so, then that is a miscalculation on my part. Also, if so, then that means I've made two picks without picking a goalie and I was quite alarmed at how fast they were going. I certainly wouldn't have had Durnan at 77th. Could have had Fuhr, Gardiner, or Hainsworth, though. So, with all Lidstroms being equal, if it's a question of whether I'd want Lindsay and Fuhr, or Dionne and Durnan, that's debatable. Let's just say I'm not delighted with how it went, but I averted what could have been a disaster.

You're right, Baun is on the first pairing for balance, but he could just as easily balance out Gonchar. Lidstrom is no liability; he can play with anyone, and Boucher is just as tough. He's better overall, too, so that strengthens my first unit while weakening the second; however, Baun provides the same elements I valued in Boucher to balance the erratic Gonchar. I will probably do this.

I see Duff as a guy who can play with pretty much anyone. Is that inaccurate?

Re: the goaltending.. thanks, i agree, I hope we're right.

Re: natural positions, addressed above.

Still tinkering with the lineup for chemistry, and I wouldn't be adverse to having a second line that isn't significantly better than the 4th, as that is a Lindy Ruff thing to do. This would also offset the lack of defensive awareness in the top-6. I agree, the PP won't be a problem. if I can figure out a configuration that works in all situations, I could be sitting pretty.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 03:22 PM
  #120
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Weaknesses

Offense/Toughness from the Defense: Your top pairing, while very good defensively, aren't known for being great physically or offensively (though they were both great in transistion). I'm not sold on Ross (not sure why there is so much of a premium on him compared to a Hod Stuart, or even a Si Griffis to a certain extent). Talbot was said to be physical and was decent offensively, though he wasn't overly big, so it may be a concern he's required to step up and play physical especially with some of the big forwards in the division. Plus, outside of one big season, he wasn't a huge point producer, he was more of a transitional player between Harvey and J.C. Trembley. Van Impe is the first real banger on your team, but he's not a guy you'd want playing too many minutes.

IMO, it's the only glaring weakness on your team. The only other thing I can think of off hand is Mosdell seems to be a bit of a waste between Ferguson and Tremblay, and I can't see him producing much playing between those two (though I don't think you're expecting that line to produce much anyway ).

You have definitely put together a very solid team top to bottom and should it expect it to do well this draft.
Thanks for the review pitseleh and Vancity

I also think my glaring weakness is the lack of offensive abilities of my blueline. As I was planning to play a solid defensive team, it was important for me to select a solid, defensive first, first pairing, which I have done with Laperriere and Johnson. Tom Johnson had some offensive abilities and was struck behind one of the best in Doug Harvey, but I wouldn't call him an offensive defenseman. He will get PP time on the second unit.

At the time I selected my third defenseman (Ross at #164), I knew I wanted a more 'offensively gifted' defenseman. I think Harry Cameron was the better offensive defenseman, but I couldn't get myself to get what I consider a uni-dimensionnal D-Man with some attitude problem (he was very average in his own zone from what I know ... Nalyd? Sturm?). Art Ross good offensive and great defensive abilities, alongside speed and leadership. He was also a fierce competitor and a great stick-handler. A great player to have on a second unit, but it's true, no real offensive genius.

However, I think I'm not that bad in the physical department. Obviously, Laperriere and Johnson weren't crunching machine, but they weren't inept at checking and punishing the other players, especially Laperriere. In my opinion, Talbot was a good physical body-checker. THat is why I was anxious trading to get him play alongside Ross, who's lacking in that regard. Van Impe was one tough man, great physical presence, great shot blocker. I think he's very competent as a #5 defenseman, but as you stated, I won't rely heavily on my third unit; my top-4 is strong enough to get some work load from my third pair of defenseman (Also, I think Hillman is an awesome 7th defenseman)

As for your comment on Mosdell, I know on a line with Ferguson and Tremblay, his offensive abilities are wasted. I completely rely on Mosdell to do his work defensively while Ferguson and Tremblay do their business. I already stated that Ferguson scoring abilities arn't inept and 4 30 goals season in 12 years for Tremblay on a line that wasn't their priority is somewhat good. I think they will score from time to time, but I don't expect him to do big offensive damage (For example, my third line as WAY more offensive abilities than them).

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 04:25 PM
  #121
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

I see Duff as a guy who can play with pretty much anyone. Is that inaccurate?
I was referring to their opposed playoffs resumes, performances, and results

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 04:51 PM
  #122
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LapierreSports View Post
First off, its pretty tough to find a better 1-2 combination at center. Everyone here would dream to have Beliveau and Forsberg as their number 1 and 2 centers. I just finished watching the 56-60 Cup run on VHS and Beliveau was the guy who impressed me the most.

Sure, Punch Broadbent led the league in goals one season but is he really first line materiel ? And I think you are overly excited about Redmond; his quick rise to the top was followed by an equally fast decline. A lot has been said about Redmond that he owed his success to the great playmaking of Delvecchio. Right place at the right time with the right guy ?

At LW, you have pretty much the same guy on your first and second line, altough I am more of a fan of Naslund than Propp, great pick !

Bourne and Nystrom tend to get more credit they deserve because of 2 spectacular plays in the playoffs: an end to end rush by Bourne and an overtime winner by Nystrom. By the way, to do want Wayne Merrick to play with these guys because Maloney seems out of place.

When I look at your defense, it looks a lot like the Falcons D and my D. Solid all around, but unspectacular and I have a lot of trouble evaluating Joe Hall.

You say you have a team of playoff character guys, but will your team even make the playoffs ?
Broadbent's career totals look poor because of his offensively bankrupt last three years. But his best years, from 1912-13 to 1925-26 (exempting three years of his absolute prime where he was in World War I), for a ten year period over 231 games he had 158 goals, about .7 goals per game including 109 goals in 127 games over a 7 year stretch. I'd say that constitutes top line level production.

Mickey Redmond I'm not super excited about but he's the most dynamic wing I had. As far as the Delvecchio factor goes, he played with him 1972-1973 in that first season he had the 50 goals, but in 73-74 Delvecchio retired after 4 assists in 40 games so he wasn't much of a factor.

If you have trouble evaluating Joe Hall, then you should have the same trouble with Joe Malone, Hod Stuart, Art Ross, Cyclone Taylor, Harry Cameron, et al.

And as far as I know, we all make the playoffs Though I think I have a good enough team to make the playoffs even if we don't.

Evil Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 04:56 PM
  #123
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by LapierreSports View Post
First off, its pretty tough to find a better 1-2 combination at center.
Stan Mikita - Milt Schmidt?

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 05:10 PM
  #124
Rick Middleton
Registered User
 
Rick Middleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 71,939
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rick Middleton
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
Stan Mikita - Milt Schmidt?
Morenz - Cowley FTW!!11

Rick Middleton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2007, 05:29 PM
  #125
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Middleton View Post
Morenz - Cowley FTW!!11
I really like both of them, but in my opinion, Beliveau and Mikita are better than Morenz and Schmidt is miles away over Cowley. Forsberg is also better, but to a lesser extent.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:23 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.