HFBoards

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

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

ATD2010 Draft Summary

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-27-2010, 06:59 AM
  #51
Velociraptor
Registered User
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Biggest Steal of the draft: Lorne Chabot, 551st overall
Biggest Reach of the draft: Dion Phaneuf, 15th round
Smartest/best strategic pick in the draft: Vladimir Vikulov (scorer that team needed gotten in 18th round)
Biggest blunder selection of the draft: Don Cherry, coach (not what that team needed)
A Player finally getting respect in the draft: Odie Cleghorn, 332nd & George Hay, 12th round
A player always taken too high, finally getting picked where he should in the draft: Jamie Langenbrunner, 21st round
A player you've discovered in this draft: Pete Muldoon, coach
Most underrated player taken: Ivan Hlinka, 18th round
Most overrated player taken: Esa Tikkanen, early 7th round (love 'em but way too early)
Favourite line of the draft: Jack Walker - Guy Carbonneau - Mario Trembay
Best assembled line of the draft: Delvecchio-Lemieux-C.Conacher; Krutov-Larionov-Makarov
Worst assembled line of the draft: Eddie Shack-Doug Weight-John McKenzie; Kharlamov-Beliveau-Sloan
Favourite pairing of defensemen: Craig Ludwig - Dickie Boon; Jim Neilson - Barry Beck
Most puzzling pairing of defensemen: Jan Suchy - Sergei Zubov
Team in the other conference it'd be interesting to meet in the finals: Pats (has the centers to neutralize Fusiliers duo)
Team in the other conference you wouldn't want to meet in the finals: Latvia (I'd concede defeat - counters all my team's strengths)
VI, I'm curious as to why you say that? Compared to the Maroons opinion that it was one of the better assembled lines.

Velociraptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 07:40 AM
  #52
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Probably because Kharlamov SHOULD be on a line where he's the most talented player on it. He could use a goal scoring center and a gritty right wing.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 09:56 AM
  #53
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
I don't know, seems to me like Kharlamov fit well to any line he played on.

In the 1971-72 season, he played 1st with Vikulov and Firsov on the national team and CSKA, and when Firsov was dropped from Team USSR, with Vikulov and Maltsev (ntl team only).

And coinsidence or not, that was maybe Kharlamov's best season ever: leading scorer at the Winter Olympics (by far) and Soviet league, all-star in the WHC, 2nd in Soviet MVP voting (or winner [tied] according to some) ...

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 01:17 PM
  #54
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Probably because Kharlamov SHOULD be on a line where he's the most talented player on it. He could use a goal scoring center and a gritty right wing.
You may be right. I admit this line also seemed "off" to me, but I wouldn't say the worst.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 03:23 PM
  #55
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,830
vCash: 500
I just can't see the line working.

Tod Sloan is the worst first liner in the draft (twice top-5 in goals and two more times top-10 in a six team league, yeah, sent down to the minors for poor defensive play early in career (twice I recall), probably average in that regard later, certainly not renowned as a corner man, at best a guy who could check and finish decently in his era, really a Bottom-6 player in an all-time context.

Kharlamov needs a speedy linemate like Petrov to cycle on the perimeter and weave magic with, not Big John whose skating was skilled but not exactly the most mobile for changing directions, using his size to hold his own and control the middle. You can watch Valeri at his best on google videos and his style needs an equally shifty high flying linemate to match his style.

Daniel with Henrik Sedin, a young Hossa with Bonk down low during the Dead Puck era were magic, Elias with Sykora, these kinds of duos is what Kharlamov is ideally a part of: speed, creativity and unpredictable plays. Sloan shows no evidence of being able to keep up with a Kharlamov and Beliveau plays a different style, needs more of a corner man and a finisher for his dish off passes when multiple opposing players try and stop him up the middle.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 03:50 PM
  #56
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
I picked it as one of my "favorite lines", not one of the "best assembled lines".

btw, I think you're underrating Sloan a bit VanI... and also, you said Varlamov is best with "shifty guys" well...

Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

Sloan was a creative center who relied on quick, shifty movement to get the puck into dangerous scoring positions. He was unique to say the least, so unique that not everyone new what to make of him and his unorthodox style of play in those days.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 04:36 PM
  #57
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
Right on, but is that not a disadvantage for modern-era players? How many players taken before Phaneuf (with weaker resumes) likely had their own share of problems and glaring weaknesses that we just don't really know too much about or consider?

Like I said before, the only reason Phaneuf doesn't go in the 15th round (or higher) is because we're all personally familiar with his career, and watch him all the time. Can the same be said for most of the other defensemen picked before him?
There should be a wider spread of opinion on modern players than on early players. The reason is that there is such a limited set of information on early players, and a wealth of information on modern players, including the opportunity to have seen them play.

But that shouldn't mean that modern players get underrated as a group, ideally. Some modern players should get a boost from the additional information, some should take a hit. Phaneuf is a player where the non-stat info is unfavorable, so he takes a hit.

Modern players can be underrated in comparison to early players if ATD GMs always make favorable assumptions to fill in missing information about early players. I agree with you to that extent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
Also, on another point... you said in your post that you disagreed with Phaneuf's FAST selection, and so do I, but I also disagree with Ovechkin's Hart nomination this year, I disagree with Ovechkin winning the Hart Trophy last year, I disagree with Brodeur's Vezina nomination this year, and so much more....

But 50 years from now, if this is still happening, the people that are doing these ATDs won't know that. They'll assume that all the award and trophy voting was spot on, much like we do now with players from every era except... *drumroll*.... the current era.
Their loss. You can drop on ATD 60 to set them straight

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 05:24 PM
  #58
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I
Kharlamov needs a speedy linemate like Petrov to cycle on the perimeter and weave magic with, not Big John whose skating was skilled but not exactly the most mobile for changing directions, using his size to hold his own and control the middle. You can watch Valeri at his best on google videos and his style needs an equally shifty high flying linemate to match his style.
Petrov fast? Everything I've seen and read about him indicated that he was slow as molasses and really a guy who followed the play, finishing what Kharlamov started.

I can see Beliveau with Kharlamov working. Kharlamov really needs to hold on to the puck a long time to be effective, but I don't think Beliveau is necessarily a guy who needs to handle the puck a lot to dominate in the offensive zone. The Canadiens usually had Harvey/Tremblay bring the puck up ice for Beliveau, no?

I also don't know why Kharlamov needs another dangler. The KPM line and the KLM line each had a single dangler who really carried the play (though I have seen Mikhailov dangle very well in videos, which goes against what our general impression of him is).

Quote:
Daniel with Henrik Sedin, a young Hossa with Bonk down low during the Dead Puck era were magic, Elias with Sykora, these kinds of duos is what Kharlamov is ideally a part of: speed, creativity and unpredictable plays. Sloan shows no evidence of being able to keep up with a Kharlamov and Beliveau plays a different style, needs more of a corner man and a finisher for his dish off passes when multiple opposing players try and stop him up the middle.
I do agree that Sloan seems like a bad fit at right wing. They really need a power forward there, and Sloan has grit, but really isn't the power winger they need.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 05:28 PM
  #59
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I just can't see the line working.

Tod Sloan is the worst first liner in the draft (twice top-5 in goals and two more times top-10 in a six team league, yeah, sent down to the minors for poor defensive play early in career (twice I recall), probably average in that regard later, certainly not renowned as a corner man, at best a guy who could check and finish decently in his era, really a Bottom-6 player in an all-time context.

Kharlamov needs a speedy linemate like Petrov to cycle on the perimeter and weave magic with, not Big John whose skating was skilled but not exactly the most mobile for changing directions, using his size to hold his own and control the middle. You can watch Valeri at his best on google videos and his style needs an equally shifty high flying linemate to match his style.

Daniel with Henrik Sedin, a young Hossa with Bonk down low during the Dead Puck era were magic, Elias with Sykora, these kinds of duos is what Kharlamov is ideally a part of: speed, creativity and unpredictable plays. Sloan shows no evidence of being able to keep up with a Kharlamov and Beliveau plays a different style, needs more of a corner man and a finisher for his dish off passes when multiple opposing players try and stop him up the middle.
Petrov was not fast. Not even close. He was the slowest player of his line. Mikhailov also wasn't the fastest guy either. These three played and dominated together for a long time.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 05:30 PM
  #60
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 23,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Petrov fast? Everything I've seen and read about him indicated that he was slow as molasses and really a guy who followed the play, finishing what Kharlamov started.
watch some games. there are several online. against the Habs on New Year's one can see Petrov and Kharlamov weave magic

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 05:30 PM
  #61
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Curious as to why Ovechkin SHOULDN'T be nominated for the Hart? The current definition is the league's best player AFAIK - wouldn't Ovechkin qualify?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 05:31 PM
  #62
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
watch some games. there are several online. against the Habs on New Year's one can see Petrov and Kharlamov weave magic
I don't disagree that they can weave magic. I strongly disagree that Petrov was fast. Also, one of the knocks on Petrov was that he took forever and a day to wind up his slapshot. He got criticized for it in the Summit Series. Any takes on that?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 05:34 PM
  #63
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Curious as to why Ovechkin SHOULDN'T be nominated for the Hart? The current definition is the league's best player AFAIK - wouldn't Ovechkin qualify?
It's for "most valuable to his team." I actually wouldn't have Ovechkin as Top 3 for the Hart this past year because he got his dumbass suspended twice and his team didn't miss a beat either time. At minimum, he should be well behind Crosby and Sedin.

But he definitely deserved the two Hart trophies he already won. He won both of them by very wide margins too, so it's not like anyone can look back and call them "controversial."

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 05:38 PM
  #64
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's for "most valuable to his team." I actually wouldn't have Ovechkin as Top 3 for the Hart this past year because he got his dumbass suspended twice and his team didn't miss a beat either time. At minimum, he should be well behind Crosby and Sedin.

But he definitely deserved the two Hart trophies he already won. He won both of them by very wide margins too, so it's not like anyone can look back and call them "controversial."
That's what the original intention was. But most people now seem to agree that it should just go to the best player.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 06:29 PM
  #65
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,808
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
That's what the original intention was. But most people now seem to agree that it should just go to the best player.
Naah, that's for the Pearson. There's still an element of "most valuable" in the Hart today.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2010, 07:51 PM
  #66
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Naah, that's for the Pearson. There's still an element of "most valuable" in the Hart today.
What I'm saying is that a lot of the people who claim themselves to be experts believe what I'm saying. Guys like Bob McKenzie, Dave Hodge, etc..

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 12:48 AM
  #67
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Yep, Petrov wasn't fast... but I don't think he was slow either - not by '70s standards. But compared to many of his teammates, he was a pretty poor skater. Mikhailov was too, but he was a little faster.

Petrov's forte was his playmaking, stickhandling and 2-way play; he was the most defensively responsible of the 3, as well as usually working the hardest. Kharlamov was the magician, of course, who was the most, er, independent of them, whereas Petrov and Mikhailov usually worked very closely together. I think it changed a little after 1976, when Kharlamov came back from his bad injury, and Kharlamov became more dependent on his linemates, who would usually outshine him after that in the WCs etc.

BTW, sometimes, when Petrov was injured or something, Alexander Maltsev would replace him on the top line (game 3 of the 1972 Summit Series, vs. the Bruins and Philly in the 1975-76 Super series), and I don't know, they were usually at least as good as with Petrov at center; just look at the Summit series or the Bruins game, phew! But to me it looked like any player on the Soviet top line could be replaced, and it didn't have much effect at all; just look at the 2nd game of the 1979 Challenge Cup when injured Kharlamov was replaced by a newcomer, Victor Tyumenev, a Spartak player who was playing his 1st game on the national team. The same thing applies to KLM in the 1980s.


Last edited by VMBM: 05-28-2010 at 03:48 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 01:05 AM
  #68
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Petrov worked harder than Mikhailov? Really? I have my doubts about that, based on what I've read.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 01:30 AM
  #69
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Petrov worked harder than Mikhailov? Really? I have my doubts about that, based on what I've read.
Yes, based on what I've SEEN

As far as playmaking and defensive play go, Petrov definitely worked harder IMO. Mikhailov's hard work was mainly in the slot area; trying to get into position to bang in rebounds and redirect shots. Well, I guess it's indeed hard work to wrestle with the defensemen all night, no doubt about that...

It looks, though, that Petrov started out merely as a goal-scoring center (when you look at his stats in the late '60s/early '70s), and only later became a true playmaker and a 2-way player. This is what Petrov himself said (referring to the 1972 Summit series): "By Soviet standards I'd always been considered an offensive centerman. Phil Esposito and Bobby Clarke forced me to play a more defensive style. The experience made me a better all around player"

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 07:02 AM
  #70
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Yes, based on what I've SEEN

As far as playmaking and defensive play go, Petrov definitely worked harder IMO. Mikhailov's hard work was mainly in the slot area; trying to get into position to bang in rebounds and redirect shots. Well, I guess it's indeed hard work to wrestle with the defensemen all night, no doubt about that...

It looks, though, that Petrov started out merely as a goal-scoring center (when you look at his stats in the late '60s/early '70s), and only later became a true playmaker and a 2-way player. This is what Petrov himself said (referring to the 1972 Summit series): "By Soviet standards I'd always been considered an offensive centerman. Phil Esposito and Bobby Clarke forced me to play a more defensive style. The experience made me a better all around player"
I've seen that quote before, but only that to me is not enough to substantiate, in an all time context, good defensive ability. There are also quotes about Mikhailov working hard in backchecking as well, but no one really talks about that.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 08:04 AM
  #71
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
I've seen that quote before, but only that to me is not enough to substantiate, in an all time context, good defensive ability. There are also quotes about Mikhailov working hard in backchecking as well, but no one really talks about that.
Whatever there.

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 08:40 AM
  #72
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Since my word doesn't seem to be good enough here, let's call Arthur Chidlovski for help:

"Vladimir Petrov obviously belongs to the list of the glorious centers in the Soviet hockey history. He was a vital playmaker of the legendary Mikhailov-Petrov-Kharlamov line in Team USSR and Red Army Club.
Petrov established himself as a sound 2-way forward. He was a very fine powerplay and penaltykilling player. His skill set included slick playmaking, incredible chemistry with his wings, top level 1-on-1 mastery and an extremely powerful and accurate splashot that led Petrov to many scoring titles.
In defense, he was known for outstanding physical play equal to the level of the best Soviet blueliners
."
From: http://www.chidlovski.net/1974/74_pl...?playerid=ru16

Even though I don't quite understand that "top level 1-on-1 mastery" thing (he had the stickhandling skills for it but not really skating skills/speed to be effective), with the rest I agree 100 %. Chidlovski should know something.

I have certainly witnessed Petrov being used on penalty killing A LOT, and it wasn't because of his 'great breakaway speed', let me tell you that much. He was often paired with Mikhailov, but to me at least, Mikhailov seemed more of an opportunist; he worked hard in the offensive zone but not so hard in his own zone.

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 02:47 PM
  #73
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
If all that is true, then we're likely underrating Petrov. However, if he was so damn good in all these areas, why don't more people talk about it? I'm not saying you're wrong. However, Petrov himself said that he became more of a two-way player after the Summit Series, which was about 1/3rd into his career. So before that, he's an unknown, and afterwards, we don't even know to what degree he was as a good two-way player. I can maybe see him as above average in an all time context. Playmaking from him, I've never heard of that. And then there is that quote from the Summit Series where his own coaches or something like that were complaining that he took way too long to wind up his slapshot and it became easy for the other team to block his shots because of it.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 02:49 PM
  #74
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,331
vCash: 500
Interestingly enough, Petrov had an even more dominant scoring performance in a World Championship than Kharlamov had at the Olympics. 34 points in 10 games in 72-73.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2010, 04:53 PM
  #75
VMBM
Amate misericordiam
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
If all that is true, then we're likely underrating Petrov. However, if he was so damn good in all these areas, why don't more people talk about it? I'm not saying you're wrong. However, Petrov himself said that he became more of a two-way player after the Summit Series, which was about 1/3rd into his career. So before that, he's an unknown, and afterwards, we don't even know to what degree he was as a good two-way player. I can maybe see him as above average in an all time context. Playmaking from him, I've never heard of that. And then there is that quote from the Summit Series where his own coaches or something like that were complaining that he took way too long to wind up his slapshot and it became easy for the other team to block his shots because of it.


Where do you think he got all those assists from??? (341 assists in 596 Soviet league games, compared to Mikhailov's 223 ass. in 572 g. and Kharlamov's 214 ass. in 436 g.). You seemed to love stats, when we were arguing about Martinec, Novy etc. Now, I know the Soviet league statistics from '60s/70s aren't the most complete in the world, but I doubt Petrov's numbers are any more 'wrong' than Mikhailov's or Kharlamov's.

Interestingly, though, in world championship play Kharlamov got more assists than Petrov (85 to 80). Before 1973, Petrov's numbers in the World Championships are quite underwhelming, but from then on he usually won the scoring title (1973, 75, 77 and 79). It is also worth noting that he got injured both in 1974 and '78 and did not play all the games. In the 1976 WC, he did not play at all.

For me, the only real knock on Petrov is that he didn't win any big individual awards; neither in the Soviet league nor in the world championships, despite all those all-star berths. So he maybe lacked that great shining moment.

I have to say that I'm puzzled. I namely had almost the same argument with another poster (Dark Shadows), who [also] had the opinion that Petrov was clearly below Kharlamov and Mikhailov, you know, basically just 'lucky to be there'. And that is TOTALLY against the impression that I've got, from what I've read, from the numbers Petrov produced and from the 40-45 games I've seen in recent years (on DVD). Go figure.

VMBM 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 01:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

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