HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

All-Time Draft #12 Line-up Assassination Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2009, 07:08 PM
  #26
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Wow, this whole thing about early stars not having played against the top guys in the world at the time is getting overblown.

Let me illustrate a very specific example. In 1919, the PCHA had 3 teams and a 20 game season.

The Millionaires had Lloyd Cook, Art Duncan, Si Griffis, Fred Harris, Fred Kelly, Mickey Mackay, Barney Stanley, Cyclone Taylor and Charlie Uksila.

The Victorias had Frank Foyston, Ran Mcdonald, Bernie Morris, Hugh Murray, Roy Ricky, Bobby Rowe, Alf Skinner, Jack Walker, Cully Wilson.

The Aristocrats had Alf Barbour, Trooper Box, Leo Cook, Tommy Dunderdale, Bobby Genge, Alex Irvin, Moose Johnson, Dubbie Kerr, Clern Loughlin, Wilf Loughlin, Stan Marples, Lester Patrick, Eddie Oatman, Skinner Poulin and Charles Tobin.

Keep in mind that the best players played the ENTIRE game, so the players that faced the Millionaires played against Cook, Taylor, Harris, Mackay, Duncan and Griffis for the most part. ALL. FREAKING. GAME.

The Metropolitans had Foyston, Morris, Skinner, Walker.

The Aristocrats had Dunderdale, Johnson, Patrick and Oatman.

The Aristocrats and Metropolitans had to play against the Millionaires group 10 times a season, and the other teams had to play against the other groups 10 times a season as well. I'd say the competition on a nightly basis was pretty intense!

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 07:13 PM
  #27
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
*When I see Harmon on the first PP unit (or any PP unit, for that matter), and Reise on a second PP unit, it makes me wonder about the ability of this defence to advance the puck or work the PP. The flip side is that this is a very reliable, sound and steady defence, and with the exception of Zubov, Jungo should feel comfortable employing any of his defencemen against the opposition's top line.
.
Actually, a guy like Harmon shouldn't be on a 1st PP unit.
However... Zubov and Murphy would be redundant on the same unit. Murphy is one of the best PP d-men ever. Harmon did lead the league in goals for a D-Man twice during his career (though it was probably kindof an accident, as the two best offensive D-Men were.. yeah, Quackenbush and Reardon, who weren't goalscorers by any stretch)... plus, he's solid defensively.

He should be a 2nd PP guy on anyteam. He's a 1st PP guy on Jungo's team kindof by accident.

This said... The 2nd PP unit won't see lots of icetime, with a guy like Gretzky on the 1st unit, and Harmon wasn't an elite goalscoring D either. And Zubov definitely deserves icetime. Don't think Jungo can go wrong with either choice, but I understand why he'd play Murphy with either of Harmon or Zubov.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 07:14 PM
  #28
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
There is plenty of evidence that the top-level PCHA teams and players were as good as the top-level NHA/NHL teams and players. Although the difference in Stanley Cup series victories looks large, it is only a small difference in games won, and the west actually had the GF/GA edge. Besides that, we have those yearly all-star series in New York that you didn't know about, and then the dominance of players such as Newsy Lalonde, Fred Taylor, Frank Nighbor, Didier Pitre, Eddie Oatman, Tom Dunderdale, Tom Phillips, Gord Roberts, and others who played both in the east and west and attained similar levels of dominance in each. The evidence is there that the best players were split, 50/50, give or take, between the east and the west. By the time the NHA was formed in 1910, there was a consolidation of talent like never before. You didn't have to look to 3/4 leagues to find all the best players. For years, they were in two - The NHA/NHL and the PCHA.

So with the relative equality between east and west well-established, why penalize a player for playing in a system like this? Was it his fault the leagues were split up? Was he playing inferior competition as a result? The answer is no. Simply, he was only playing against half of the best players. If the leagues combined and the number of teams remained the same, any player would still be playing the same percentage of "top" players. Once you start considering the west to be a "conference" and the east the other conference, and considering that the east and west teams met in the finals (like the world series, for example), then you can get over your irrational fear of pre-1926 players. Seriously, try it!

Two other corrections to your posts so far:

1. The end of the top-level amateurs happened well before the 1910 inagural NHA season so I have no idea why mentioning that was relevant.

2. Who did Tommy Smith score against? He played in this league called the NHA, it was the same league as the NHL but under a different name. His opponents were players like Frank Nighbor and Newsy Lalonde. In other words, the same place those players built the majority of their legacies. Did you think Smith was a turn-of-the-century player?
Most of what you stated I actually was well aware of, except for the all-star games. Well aware of players who thrived in both. Well aware that Bill Cook led the NHL in scoring his first year in that league after dominating out west.

If you believe that "the best players were split, 50/50, give or take, between the east and the west," then that really does weaken the case for both leagues. And that's what I've been questioning all along. Is it fair to punish them for that? No. But it does have to happen. I think there is inferior competition. It's a reality of playing in a league where half the best players aren't in the league. Just like there was inferior competition in the NHL from 1942-43 to 1944-45. You can't look at accomplishments in pre-consolidation leagues, and give them the same weight as accomplishments post-26.

In the 30s, most of the best players in the world were in the NHL. After the Second World War, most of the best were in the NHL. In 1923, they weren't. Half were in the NHL, and half were in the West Coast league. That makes a very big difference in the overall calibre of play.

The comparison with baseball is an interesting one. Obviously there are differences. At the same time, in baseball, it's the way it's been for many, many years. In hockey, you're looking at what, 15 years? 17 years? The comparison would be far more fitting if baseball had the separate leagues for a short period of time. But they didn't. In baseball, it's the way it was, is and probably forever will be. In hockey, it's the way it was for a short period of time. And when it changed, it changed the sport forever, and eventually consolidation led to big changes in the rule book. (I don't know if they allow the forward pass in the offensive zone without consolidation. I definitely don't think it happens in 1930-31 without consolidation).

I'm not afraid of pre-26 players. We have two on our team. And a Soviet league star. And a Czech. I just think we have to take pre-26 accomplishments with a grain of salt, because the best players in the world weren't concentrated in one league.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 07:22 PM
  #29
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Most of what you stated I actually was well aware of, except for the all-star games. Well aware of players who thrived in both. Well aware that Bill Cook led the NHL in scoring his first year in that league after dominating out west.

If you believe that "the best players were split, 50/50, give or take, between the east and the west," then that really does weaken the case for both leagues. And that's what I've been questioning all along. Is it fair to punish them for that? No. But it does have to happen. I think there is inferior competition. It's a reality of playing in a league where half the best players aren't in the league. Just like there was inferior competition in the NHL from 1942-43 to 1944-45. You can't look at accomplishments in pre-consolidation leagues, and give them the same weight as accomplishments post-26.

In the 30s, most of the best players in the world were in the NHL. After the Second World War, most of the best were in the NHL. In 1923, they weren't. Half were in the NHL, and half were in the West Coast league. That makes a very big difference in the overall calibre of play.

The comparison with baseball is an interesting one. Obviously there are differences. At the same time, in baseball, it's the way it's been for many, many years. In hockey, you're looking at what, 15 years? 17 years? The comparison would be far more fitting if baseball had the separate leagues for a short period of time. But they didn't. In baseball, it's the way it was, is and probably forever will be. In hockey, it's the way it was for a short period of time. And when it changed, it changed the sport forever, and eventually consolidation led to big changes in the rule book. (I don't know if they allow the forward pass in the offensive zone without consolidation. I definitely don't think it happens in 1930-31 without consolidation).

I'm not afraid of pre-26 players. We have two on our team. And a Soviet league star. And a Czech. I just think we have to take pre-26 accomplishments with a grain of salt, because the best players in the world weren't concentrated in one league.
that is just wrong.

You blow off the baseball comparison because it's always been that way. Shouldn't that be more reason to accept the way hockey was for 15 years? It hasn't hurt any baseball players' legacies that they never played in the AL versus certain all-time greats, or vice versa.

The WW2 comparison is irrelevant. WW2 was directly responsible for many of the game's best players not playing hockey, at all, for a few years. The caliber of hockey was lessened. In the PCHA days, all (with minor exceptions) of the best hockey players in the world were in two leagues. They were just split up. None of them went anywhere. (yes, a very small few went to war for a couple years) It's exactly like baseball, but of course why would you axknowledge that?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 07:23 PM
  #30
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Also, if you assume that the talent is split 50/50, and there is a large amount of evidence that this is true, it doesn't change anything from a competition standpoint.

In a consolidated league, the players wouldn't be redistributed, the teams would simply be added into a consolidated league. So, in my 1919 PCHA example, the NHA's teams would be added to the schedule, and the nightly competition would still be more or less the same, there would just be different players.

Is it really so different to play Lalonde and Nighbor on a nightly basis than Taylor and Mackay or Foyston or Dunderdale?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 07:52 PM
  #31
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Hamilton Bettmans (Johnny Engine and Dreakmur)

Coach - Don Cherry
Assistant Coach - Roger Neilson

Vladimir Krutov - Mario Lemieux [A] - Hooley Smith [C]
Tommy Smith - Darryl Sittler [A] - Billy Boucher
Tommpy Phillips - Art Chapman - Blair Russel
Percy Galbraith - Red Berenson - Mush March

Valery Vasiliev [A] - Moose Johnson
Jan Suchy - Bert Corbeau
Dunc Munro - Red Dutton

Clint Benedict
Tom Paton

Spares: Corb Denneny and Jack Campbell

Minor League : Jim Riley - Clare McKerrow - Cully Wilson - Bobby Trapp - Jim McKenny - Nicklas Backstrom

Powerplay
Unit #1: Vladimir Krutov - Mario Lemieux - Hooley Smith - Jan Suchy - Bert Corbeau
Unit #2: Tommy Smith - Darryl Sittler - Tommy Phillips - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson

Penalty Kill
Unit #1: Hooley Smith - Tommy Phillips - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson
Unit #2: Art Chapman - Blair Russel - Dunc Munro - Red Dutton
Unit #3: Red Berenson - Percy Galbraith

Shut-down Unit: Tommy Phillips - Art Chapman - Blair Russel - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson
What I Like
- Top-2 centres. Lemieux and Sittler are excellent 1st and 2nd line centres, respectively. First line on a whole is good.
- Third line; that line is excellent at both ends of the ice, and is likely one of the best out there.
- Clint Benedict is a superb starter.

What I don't Like
- Billy Boucher on the 2nd line; it's a weakspot in that top-6.
- Lack of real #1 D prescenece; if Valsiliev is one, he is lower-end.
- Paton as a back-up is something I am unsure about; but it's offset by having Benedict.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 11-11-2009 at 08:00 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 08:11 PM
  #32
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
is it really true that moose johnson had no fingers on his right hand?

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 08:33 PM
  #33
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
If you believe that "the best players were split, 50/50, give or take, between the east and the west," then that really does weaken the case for both leagues. And that's what I've been questioning all along. Is it fair to punish them for that? No. But it does have to happen. I think there is inferior competition. It's a reality of playing in a league where half the best players aren't in the league. Just like there was inferior competition in the NHL from 1942-43 to 1944-45. You can't look at accomplishments in pre-consolidation leagues, and give them the same weight as accomplishments post-26.

In the 30s, most of the best players in the world were in the NHL. After the Second World War, most of the best were in the NHL. In 1923, they weren't. Half were in the NHL, and half were in the West Coast league. That makes a very big difference in the overall calibre of play.
Just because there are 2 leagues doesn't mean each league is half as strong. Look at the number of total teams between the leagues - more teams means the players are more spread out, and that means less competition.

When the NHL consolidated with the WCHL in 1926-27, they started with 10 teams. In the 1925-26, there were 7 NHL teams and 6 WHL teams. The they were spread over 13 teams. When they consolidated, they lost 3 teams worth of players... which is about 30 players.

In 1917-18, there were 4 NHA teams and 3 PCHA teams. The talent may have been in 2 leagues, but they were only spread over 7 different teams.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 08:42 PM
  #34
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
is it really true that moose johnson had no fingers on his right hand?
I believe so. It did not at all prevent him from succeeding though (as far as I know), so I wouldn't hold it against him.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 08:43 PM
  #35
Canadiens Fan
Registered User
 
Canadiens Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
*The first line is tremendous. Obviously you can go any direction with Gordie, because he's a total offensive weapon and a physical force. (I'd try to surround him with skilled, physical linemates for the ultimate power/skill line, but that's just me). You went with the superb two-way playmaker in Boucher and another offensive machine in Sweeney Schriner - a guy who gets picked way too late in this thing.
*Kudos to give Mike Gartner talent to work with. Frederickson's a solid, skilled, gritty player. I don't know if Shutt's the right player for that line - he's an excellent garbage man, but is he what they need on that line? You have a tremendous trigger man in Gartner. I don't know how many opportunities Shutt will have to "pick up the garbage." But hey, at least Gartner has excellent talent at centre this time.
*Is your third line a scoring line or a two-way line? I'm a Carr fan - he was born about 30 minutes from where I live. But if this is a two-way line, is he good enough defensively to fill that role? Or is he out of place? Because you have Boucher, you don't need a great two-way line as much as a team with a lesser defensive centre on the front line. But if you want a two-way third line, you might want a different winger.
*I got a headache the moment I saw your fourth line. Call it the Headache Line. Skating might be an issue - Middleton and St. Louis are looking forward to blowing by Secord several nights a year. But it's going to be a combative, abrasive, annoying line that will score some goals, and generate a lot of power plays for your team with their agitation.
*Biggest concern is the lack of a No. 1 defenceman. Your top pairing is, well, slow. Yeah, they're big and tough and physical, but a line like LF's Blake-Taylor-Selanne line could be a source of problems. (That would be an interesting match-up). Regardless, that first pairing will administer a lot of hits, and they're tough, but are they mobile enough to keep up with the opposition in a best-of-seven?
*Your defence as a whole is tough. The only guy who isn't imposing is Schneider. Chara's a bad ass. Johnson's a rock. Burrows is the Steady Eddie type. There isn't a ton of skill on this defence, but they'll be tough to play against.
*A guy like Kevin Hatcher could be the key. Nobody ever doubted his ability. It's just that he didn't bring it on a nightly basis. He had nights when he looked like a sure-fire HHOF all-round defenceman. He had other nights - a lot of nights - when he was a non-factor. If his head's on straight, and Bowman gets the most out of him, he'll be your No. 3 defenceman and a force on a nightly basis. But there will also be nights when he's a liability, and he needs to be stapled to the bench.
*Tretiak might be the most polarizing player in the draft. Some love him. They think he's one of the top five goalies ever. They point to his performance in Summit, or the NYE Classic against Montreal. Others think he's a lower-end No. 1. I'm in the middle. I think he's good enough to be a No. 1, without question. But I think he's a mid-tier No. 1. That's why I would have gone for a back-up sooner than you did, although you certainly got a good one in Vernon.
Thanks GBC for the nice evaluation ... to answer some of your questions.

The third line is in fact a scoring line. My team is going to match up with my opponents line for line. With a two-way centre like Boucher as my top centre, in addition to Howe, I think I can afford that luxury. Of course, with Bowman as my coach, the greatest bench coach ever, I'm not too worried about getting the matchup I want.

You also point out the lack of a true number one defenseman in my squad. I think that Chara with his size and his reach presents a multitude for problems for the opposition, but that argument is for another day.

However, I think in a 32 team ATD you're going to see some team's that may be missing some parts.

I picked at #3 and took Gordie Howe, a pick I think most here would have made. I then didn't pick again until pick #62 when I took Frank Boucher. In between those picks there were 21 defensemen taken in the draft. I would argue that in that group one would find the true #1 defensemen. The simple truth of the matter is that I could have drafted a number one defenseman with the third overall pick. By picking Howe, I gave up the chance to have an elite number one d-man on my team.

Obviously, because of my draft position I was unable to maybe get one of those coveted number ones, so instead I went with Boucher and Tretiak each of whom I feel are elite at their position. Picking Boucher meant passing on Serge Savard and Rod Langway, and picking Tretiak meant passing on Vasiliev. Since you have already said a few posts back that you didn't feel that Langway or Vasiliev were true #1 defensemen, I feel quite comfortable in getting Chara and Johnson later, both of whom I rank as comparable with Langway and Vasiliev, and who I feel make one of the most physically imposing pairings in the ATD.

Canadiens Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 08:43 PM
  #36
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
that is just wrong.

You blow off the baseball comparison because it's always been that way. Shouldn't that be more reason to accept the way hockey was for 15 years? It hasn't hurt any baseball players' legacies that they never played in the AL versus certain all-time greats, or vice versa.

The WW2 comparison is irrelevant. WW2 was directly responsible for many of the game's best players not playing hockey, at all, for a few years. The caliber of hockey was lessened. In the PCHA days, all (with minor exceptions) of the best hockey players in the world were in two leagues. They were just split up. None of them went anywhere. (yes, a very small few went to war for a couple years) It's exactly like baseball, but of course why would you axknowledge that?
Regarding baseball, I would actually say there is a big time difference between the two leagues. The NL has it's stars, who probably would excel in either league, but I've always viewed the AL as a quite superior league. I have a similar view with the PCHA as opposed to the NHA/NHL. I have no doubt that many stars could interchange leagues and do just as well, but I definitely think the NHA/NHL was superior, and I somewhat question some PCHAers, but only the lower-tier ones.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 08:53 PM
  #37
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,436
vCash: 500
Not quite finished yet(two minor leaguers to go), but I'll put this in here before I forget:


New York Golden Blades


Coach: Ken Hitchcock
Captain: Henri Richard
Alternate Captains: Viacheslav Fetisov, Scott Niedermayer, Marty Pavelich

#21 John Tonelli-#16 Henri Richard-#5 Didier Pitre
#9 Glenn Anderson-#26 Peter Stastny-#7 Joe Mullen
#11 Marty Pavelich-#19 Rick MacLeish-#15 Eric Nesterenko
#91 Paul Henderson-#17 Neal Broten-#22 Rick Vaive
#61 Rick Nash, #10 Bobby Carpenter

#2 Viacheslav Fetisov-#4 Carl Brewer
#8 Barclay Plager-#27 Scott Niedermayer
#29 Reijo Ruotsalainen-#14 Joe Watson
#3 Billy Coutu

#1 Chuck Rayner
#31 Roberto Luongo


Powerplay 1: Anderson-Stastny-Pitre-Fetisov-Niedermayer
Powerplay 2: Tonelli-Richard-Mullen-Ruotsalainen-Brewer

Penalty Kill 1: Richard-Pavelich-Fetisov-Brewer
Penalty Kill 2: MacLeish-Nesterenko-Niedermayer-Plager
Penalty Kill 3: Broten-Henderson-Fetisov-Brewer



Spares Available For Re-call:
RW/LW-#47 Alexei Kovalev
D-#44 Dave Babych
C-#23 Craig Janney
D-#41 Mattias Norstrom
RW/LW/C-#40 Rob Niedermayer
G-#39 Felix Potvin


Some notes I have about the team:

-I know I defended Richard as a top powerplay guy, and I still do, but I feel it's best for him to go to the second unit. He's already on the top line and top PK unit, so I don't want to tire him out. Also, with Stastny already there, as well as Niedermayer and Fetisov, I feel I don't need his passing all that much but could rather use another finisher.
-I also had Nash in there before, but I feel Henderson can be pretty similar offensively, while allowing the unit to be more solid defensively, also adding another PK presence. Feel free to let me know if this is a mistake, though.
-More to come in terms of actually evaluating the group. I'll let you guys get to that first.


Last edited by Gibsons Finest: 11-13-2009 at 02:04 AM.
Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 08:57 PM
  #38
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
I believe so. It did not at all prevent him from succeeding though (as far as I know), so I wouldn't hold it against him.
that makes me have even more doubts about him.

his extremely long stick, which was apparently a big part of his game, would be illegal, and he has no fingers on his right hand.


players from previous eras are assumed to be able to adapt to modern conditions, b/c they are basically the same as modern players, but i do not see why the same assumption should be applied to a player missing all the fingers on his right hand.

how could that not be a severe problem?

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 09:02 PM
  #39
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
*The first line will be one of the toughest to play against in the draft. Lemieux wasn't overly physical, but he used his massive frame and strength to make life miserable for opponents. Smith and Krutov bring skill and toughness on the wings. I think Krutov might be better-suited to second line duty, but it's hard to mess up a line with Mario and the Hooley. Teams that have a defensive pairing lacking in grit, toughness and/or size might be wise to keep them away from this bull of a line.
Thanks. I like our first line too. Having Smith drop to us was pretty much a gift, and it was the perfect fit to balance out Lemieux. Krutov definitely is a lower end first liner, but thatís what happens when you wait to the 9th round to draft one. Overall, the chemistry of the first line should be top-notch!


Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
*Not sold on the wingers for the second line. I'm sold on Sittler - I think he's good enough for a first line role. But Smith and Boucher don't do it for me. Competition is a big issue for Smith. He put up numbers, but against who? Boucher had two second place finishes in goals, and a couple third place finishes in points, but it didn't last long. The year before consolidation, his numbers plummeted. He played a little more than a year after consolidation, and it's not like he was a 30-something veteran at the time, either. What Boucher does bring is the gritty presence to that second line.
Tommy Smith put up a 1st, 1st, 2nd in scoring in the NHA, which put him ahead of guys like Newsy Lalonde, Joe Malone, Frank Nighbor, Cy Denneny, etc. His scoring accomplishments are much more impressive than somebody like Steve Shutt...

Billy Boucher did have a short career, but it was a very strong peak. Iíd agree heís one of the weaker 2nd line wingers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
*The third line is a very, very smart line. In terms of hockey IQ, they're going to among the best in the draft. As stated when you guys picked him, Chapman was the guy I'd targeted for our third line from the outset. The question is how they will do against lines that bring skill and toughness to the table, because I'm not certain there's the big-time physical player on this line.
There isnít a big time physical guy on this line, but our shut-down defence pairing is Valery Vasiliev and Moose Johnson, so there will be physical players on the ice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
*Much like Jungo's team, there isn't a legit No. 1 defenceman. Vasiliev is the best of this bunch, but he's a bottom-end No. 1. He's a rock-solid blue-liner, but I wonder if he's better suited to being a No. 2. It means this team doesn't have the minute-muncher who can play 25-30 minutes per game.
Agreed we donít have a top-end defenseman, which is why we took a 2nd and 3rd defensemen so quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
*From 1-6, the defence is as tough as any in the draft. Vasiliev's tough. Johnson is tough. Corbeau is tough. Munro is tough. Suchy isn't all that physical, but you need someone to quarterback the power play. .
Thanks. I like our defensive toughness too.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 09:03 PM
  #40
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Regarding baseball, I would actually say there is a big time difference between the two leagues. The NL has it's stars, who probably would excel in either league, but I've always viewed the AL as a quite superior league. I have a similar view with the PCHA as opposed to the NHA/NHL. I have no doubt that many stars could interchange leagues and do just as well, but I definitely think the NHA/NHL was superior, and I somewhat question some PCHAers, but only the lower-tier ones.
Then how come the best teams were able to beat the best teams from the NHL/NHA for the cup at all, if the PCHA was just plain inferior? And compete quite well too. I seem to recall the goals for the PCHA/western leagues and goals for NHA/NHL in all those final series combined being quite close, someone correct me if I am wrong.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 09:04 PM
  #41
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
how could that not be a severe problem?
The same way it wasn't a problem when he actually played.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 09:06 PM
  #42
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
that makes me have even more doubts about him.

his extremely long stick, which was apparently a big part of his game, would be illegal, and he has no fingers on his right hand.


players from previous eras are assumed to be able to adapt to modern conditions, b/c they are basically the same as modern players, but i do not see why the same assumption should be applied to a player missing all the fingers on his right hand.

how could that not be a severe problem?
It's all relative. Moose Johnson achieved some amazing things in his time, and you just assume he'll adapt and be able to do similar things in a more modern league, fingers or not. Otherwise, we'd all be picking modern day players. I tend not to hold nuances like this against a player.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 09:12 PM
  #43
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Regarding baseball, I would actually say there is a big time difference between the two leagues. The NL has it's stars, who probably would excel in either league, but I've always viewed the AL as a quite superior league. I have a similar view with the PCHA as opposed to the NHA/NHL. I have no doubt that many stars could interchange leagues and do just as well, but I definitely think the NHA/NHL was superior, and I somewhat question some PCHAers, but only the lower-tier ones.
I'd like you to substantiate that.

The PCHA had the two highest scoring defensemen on a per game level out of both leagues, I believe, in Frank and Lester Patrick. Cyclone Taylor is at least comparable, if not better than Newsy Lalonde. Jack Walker was the answer to the NHA's Frank Nighbor. Then the PCHA had Mackay, Foyston, Dunderdale, Morris, Harris, Oatman.. and I'm probably missing a few stars.

The NHA had Pitre, Ross, Ernie Russell, the Cleghorns, Joe Hall, Darragh.

A few guys jumped between both leagues, like Gord Roberts.

It was very much even.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 09:12 PM
  #44
VanIslander
Hockey in the blood.
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,391
vCash: 500
Django Reinhardt lost half his fingers but still went on to be the greatest jazz guitarist of all time.

Look at what was accomplished, not at body parts. Though Moose's 2.5 metre stick might not be regulation in an all-time context.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 09:49 PM
  #45
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Then how come the best teams were able to beat the best teams from the NHL/NHA for the cup at all, if the PCHA was just plain inferior? And compete quite well too. I seem to recall the goals for the PCHA/western leagues and goals for NHA/NHL in all those final series combined being quite close, someone correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not saying a team from the PCHA couldn't be better than a team from the NHA, just that the league as a whole was worse. It wasn't that much worse, but when I say clearly, I mean that because they were contemporary and so similar, but the NHA/NHL is higher regarded, I think it's clear which one was better, but not by a large margin.

To back up my point, I'll again turn to baseball. The NL wins just about half of the time, yet the way I see it, the AL is definitely superior. Just because a league is inferior doesn't mean it doesn't have the best player or team, just that as a whole, it's inferior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
I'd like you to substantiate that.

The PCHA had the two highest scoring defensemen on a per game level out of both leagues, I believe, in Frank and Lester Patrick. Cyclone Taylor is at least comparable, if not better than Newsy Lalonde. Jack Walker was the answer to the NHA's Frank Nighbor. Then the PCHA had Mackay, Foyston, Dunderdale, Morris, Harris, Oatman.. and I'm probably missing a few stars.

The NHA had Pitre, Ross, Ernie Russell, the Cleghorns, Joe Hall, Darragh.

A few guys jumped between both leagues, like Gord Roberts.

It was very much even.
I said a lot of what I meant, in the above post, but I'll add to that. Of the two groups of 6 or 7 you mentioned, I'd probably take NHA guys, but maybe that's just my opinion. I also don't think Jack Walker is all that close to Frank Nighbor(a guy who most see as a top-100 player all-time). Didn't hurt that you forgot a couple NHA guys, like Joe Malone, Punch Broadment, Tommy Smith, Harry Hyland. You might have forgot some good PCHAers, too, but I'm uncertain whether you did or not.

Another thing is the goaltending between both leagues. Hap Holmes was pretty decent, as was Hugh Lehman, but I'd give a major edge to a league with Benedict, Vezina, Hern, Lasueur, etc.

Again, I'm not saying the NHA was lightyears better, but that when I look at both leagues, I definitely see the NHA as the better of the two. And the only guys I question were the lower-end guys, where it's uncertain the impact they could make against a combined league. That's just me, though.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 10:09 PM
  #46
JFA87-66-99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,312
vCash: 500


Lindy Ruff
Bob Hartley

Charlie Simmer-Peter Forsberg(A)-Maurice Richard(C)
Vsvolod Bobrov-Anatoli Firsov(A)-Pavel Bure
Evgeni Malkin-Vincent Lecavalier-Russell Bowie
Tomas Holmstrom-Tumba Johansson-Yevgeny Babich
Alexei Guryshev

Brian Leetch(A)-Edward Ivanov
Nikolai Sologubov-Ivan Tregubov
Lennart Svedberg-Ian Turnbull
Ed Jovanovski

Tiny Thompson
Bouse Hutton

Minor League:
G Pelle Lindbergh
F Harry Smith
F Herb Jordan
F Lorne Campbell
D James Stewart
D Fred Higginbotham

Power Play #1
Anatoli Firsov(A)-Peter Forsberg(A)-Maurice Richard(C)
Brian Leetch(A)-Lennart Svedberg

Power Play #2
Charlie Simmer/Tomas Holmstrom-Evgeni Malkin-Pavel Bure/Russell Bowie
Nikolai Sologubov-Ian Turnbull

Penalty Killing #1
Peter Forsberg(A)-Yevgeny Babich
Edward Ivanov-Ivan Tregubov

Penalty Killing #2
Anatoli Firsov(A)-Tomas Holmstrom
Brian Leetch(A)-Nikolai Sologubov


Last edited by JFA87-66-99: 11-11-2009 at 10:26 PM.
JFA87-66-99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 10:18 PM
  #47
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Django Reinhardt lost half his fingers but still went on to be the greatest jazz guitarist of all time.

Look at what was accomplished, not at body parts. Though Moose's 2.5 metre stick might not be regulation in an all-time context.
if ATD were only about accomplishments, no one would ever have concern for team chemistry or size or speed or durability or style of play.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
The same way it wasn't a problem when he actually played.
the game was very different. everything now is done at a much higher level.

now his passing, shooting, puckhandling and stick-checking would need to be harder, faster and more accurate.

but how could those possibly happen with no fingers on his right hand?



i had a similar debate about roy worters. worters was very small. thus, much of the top of the net was open. but players were not able to shoot high nearly as much as they do now, so it was not nearly the liability it would be today.


there are cases when a player almost certainly would not be as successful in a modern environment.
no fingers on the right hand is definitely one of those cases.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 10:20 PM
  #48
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
the game was very different. everything now is done at a much higher level.

now his passing, shooting, puckhandling and stick-checking would need to be harder, faster and more accurate.

but how could those possibly happen with no fingers on his right hand?



i had a similar debate about roy worters. worters was very small. thus, much of the top of the net was open. but players were not able to shoot high nearly as much as they do now, so it was not nearly the liability it would be today.


there are cases when a player almost certainly would not be as successful in a modern environment.
having no fingers on the right hand is definitely one of those cases.
Again, clearly this guy was very good, and the fingers weren't hindering, or he could overcome it so that he could be good in those areas; if he overcome his lack of fingers to be a constant FAST defencemen, he can overcome it to raise his game up a bit.

Things get translated into the ATD, no? If a guy was a great offensive player in his time, he is a (depending on how great) a great offensive player here. If the guy is the best defensive defencemen of his time, he'll be one of the best defensive defencemen here. If a guy was not hindered at all by his lack of fingers in his time, his lack of fingers will, at best, hinder him a very small amount.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 10:30 PM
  #49
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
the game was very different. everything now is done at a much higher level.

now his passing, shooting, puckhandling and stick-checking would need to be harder, faster and more accurate.

but how could those possibly happen with no fingers on his right hand?

there are cases when a player almost certainly would not be as successful in a modern environment.
no fingers on the right hand is definitely one of those cases.
He could pass, shoot, and stickhandle well enough to win 8 consecutive 1st all -star selections, and he was considered the best stick-checker of his era. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't do the same in the ATD.

Furthermore, if he played today, he would have prosthetic fingers, which would actually make him even more effective than he was when he played.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2009, 10:30 PM
  #50
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
that makes me have even more doubts about him.

his extremely long stick, which was apparently a big part of his game, would be illegal, and he has no fingers on his right hand.


players from previous eras are assumed to be able to adapt to modern conditions, b/c they are basically the same as modern players, but i do not see why the same assumption should be applied to a player missing all the fingers on his right hand.

how could that not be a severe problem?
He accomplished what he accomplished despite this disability. His accomplishments are what make him arguably a top-100 player. Maybe he'd be top-40 if he had more fingers!

seventieslord 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 07:28 PM.

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.