All-X2 Draft Sign Up Thread

[monkey_00*]

Benton Fraser.......

Let's just say that we agree to disagree and leave it at that ok........good luck in the next draft.............By the way...I notice that there's still PLENTY of Russians still available to select in that draft over there......and Tikhonov too

 

[BM67]

as well I don't think guys like Dickie Moore, Elmer Lach, Dit Clapper and the Woody Dumarts of the world would stand a chance going up against my guys like the Sakics, Bures, Savards, Yakushevs and Robinsons

Why? Give me something based onthe players you named to show why they wouldn't cut it.

Dit Clapper, D/RW - 6’2â€, 195
Woody Dumart, LW - 6’0â€, 200
Dickie Moore, LW - 5’10â€, 185
Elmer Lach, C - 5’10â€, 170

Alexander Yakushev, LW – 6’3â€, 198
Joe Sakic, C – 5’11â€, 192
Pavel Bure, RW – 5’10â€, 189
Denis Savard, C – 5’10â€, 175

Is it size? Doesn't look like it.

Dit Clapper was the first player to have the waiting period waived for admittance to the HHoF. They don't do that for scrubs. "Guy Lapointe couldn't carry Clapper's jock strap." - Bobby Orr.

Woody Dumart shadowed Gordie Howe and helped Boston upset the heavily favored Wings in the 53 playoffs. He probably didn't suck if he could do that. "I've known few men who exceeded Woody in his talent, both ways on the ice." - Milt Schmidt

Dickie Moore, at the age of 37, helped St. Louis get to the Stanley Cup Final in 1968, and finished 2nd in playoff scoring. That's despite coming out of retirement and playing on bad knees. That's in 1968 not 1928.

Elmer Lach, the Nokomis Flash, won the Art Ross and Hart Trophies the year Rocket Richard scored 50 goals in 50 games. Maybe he doesn't suck either. "Lach was the only player I knew who could check four ways - forecheck, backcheck, and both sides of the rink as well." - Dick Irving Sr.

 

[monkey_00*]

I will have something to say in regards to your selection of players later on tonight BM67.........I have to be honest with you here........I had a very difficult time reading up your entire post and why you selected the players that you did especially when I got to the part where you stated to everybody that you feel Charlie Conacher was the better hockey player than Pavel Bure.............Oh and by the way, I just finished selecting Dominic Hasek in our draft......remember him?

 

[BM67]

I will have something to say in regards to your selection of players later on tonight BM67.........I have to be honest with you here........I had a very difficult time reading up your entire post and why you selected the players that you did especially when I got to the part where you stated to everybody that you feel Charlie Conacher was the better hockey player than Pavel Bure.............Oh and by the way, I just finished selecting Dominic Hasek in our draft......remember him?

So picking a high scoring power forward, who was a team captain, and went on to coach, over a high scoring "softie", who I expect to be in his coaches dog house, disturbs you? I certainly wouldn't make the mistake of putting Bure on my #1 PK unit, if I did have him.

I remember picking Hasek with my 3rd pick, #28, and I see you got him with your 2nd pick, #20. There's better depth at goalie that in some other positions, so I'm not that worried.

 

[monkey_00*]

So picking a high scoring power forward, who was a team captain, and went on to coach, over a high scoring "softie", who I expect to be in his coaches dog house, disturbs you? I certainly wouldn't make the mistake of putting Bure on my #1 PK unit, if I did have him.

I remember picking Hasek with my 3rd pick, #28, and I see you got him with your 2nd pick, #20. There's better depth at goalie that in some other positions, so I'm not that worried.

Charlie Conacher played his NHL hockey almost a Century ago.........really, How can you go on to pick Conacher over Bure?........Interesting little Poll I have going over at the other Forum.........I asked all hockey fans to give me their opinions as to who was the better hockey player; Bure or Conacher......heh heh heh.......It's not even CLOSE buddy.......take a look for yourself.

Oh and there's also alot more people involved in this pool then the last and the Goalies were going fast....the last 2 or 3 picks before mine were goalies....If I didn't pick Hasek now he wouldn't have been available by the time it was my turn to make my third selection in the draft..........good luck.

 

[effen]

Charlie Conacher played his NHL hockey almost a Century ago.........really, How can you go on to pick Conacher over Bure?........Interesting little Poll I have going over at the other Forum.........I asked all hockey fans to give me their opinions as to who was the better hockey player; Bure or Conacher......heh heh heh.......It's not even CLOSE buddy.......take a look for yourself.

Oh and there's also alot more people involved in this pool then the last and the Goalies were going fast....the last 2 or 3 picks before mine were goalies....If I didn't pick Hasek now he wouldn't have been available by the time it was my turn to make my third selection in the draft..........good luck.

Monkey, if you'll look back 2-5 pages ago you'll see I had something of the same argument with BM67, and while I feel I won on some points, I feel I lost to him on others, and no consensus was ever made between the two of us.

Now, my team beats the snot out of your team... and if I couldn't get a consensus with a far better team, what chance do you have?

Come on, we have another draft to worry about.

 

[monkey_00*]

Ha Ha!.........ok........good luck in the next draft.....I was only having some fun and toying around with him.

 

[Spitfire11]

Ok, how about these lines? Any better?

Peter Forsberg - Gilbert Perreault - Jari Kurri
Brenden Shanahan - Jacques Lemaire - Guy Lafleur
Michel Goulet - Mike Modano - Dave Taylor
John Ferguson - Jean Ratelle - Claude Provost
Martin St. Louis

Nicklas Lidstrom - Ulf Samuelsson
Rob Blake - Serge Savard
Eric Desjardins - "Black Jack" Stewart
J.C. Tremblay

Patrick Roy
Frank Brimsek
Mike Vernon

 

[BM67]

Charlie Conacher played his NHL hockey almost a Century ago.........really, How can you go on to pick Conacher over Bure?........Interesting little Poll I have going over at the other Forum.........I asked all hockey fans to give me their opinions as to who was the better hockey player; Bure or Conacher......heh heh heh.......It's not even CLOSE buddy.......take a look for yourself.

Run a poll with almost any modern player against almost any oldtimer and I can predict the outcome before it starts.

 

[monkey_00*]

Run a poll with almost any modern player against almost any oldtimer and I can predict the outcome before it starts.

..................me too....and that's because the hockey has gotten MUCH better since the 1930s.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

..................me too....and that's because the hockey has gotten MUCH better since the 1930s.

Or that could be that the posters on this board are generally 15-18 year old males who feel as though they can judge players they know nothing about.... a better question would involve how many people have even heard of Conacher. I guarentee you that you would find the results would indicate that most would not have heard of him, and well if they did they wouldn't be able to tell you a thing about the player.

 

[BM67]

Goaltenders

1. Red Army (Sawchuck, Tretiak, and Holecek) A+
2. New Jersey Devils (Hasek, Broda, and Hainsworth) A+
3. Rangers (Brodeur, Richter, and Joseph) A
4. Detroit Red Wings (Roy, Brimsek, and Vernon) A
5. Philadelphia Flyers (Plante, Cheevers, and Thompson) A-
6. Maple Leafs (Belfour, Fuhr, and Bower) B+
7. Hamilton Tigers (Dryden, Dzurilla, and Hextall) B+
8. Calgary Flames (Parant, Esposito, and Giacomin) B
9. California Golden Seals (Smith, Vanbiesbrouck, and Worsley) B
10. Wasps (Hall, Foster, and Gardiner) B-
11. Senators (Lindberg, Khabibulin, and Moog) B-
12. Winnipeg Jets (Durnan, Worters, and Benedict) C

1a. Detroit Red Wings (Roy, Brimsek, and Vernon) A
1b. New Jersey Devils (Hasek, Broda, and Hainsworth) A
3. Philadelphia Flyers (Plante, Cheevers, and Thompson) B++
4. Calgary Flames (Parent, Esposito, and Giacomin) B+
5. Red Army (Sawchuck, Tretiak, and Holecek) B+
6. Rangers (Brodeur, Richter, and Joseph) B+
7. Maple Leafs (Belfour, Fuhr, and Bower) B+
8. Hamilton Tigers (Dryden, Dzurilla, and Hextall) B+
9. California Golden Seals (Smith, Vanbiesbrouck, and Worsley) B+
10. Wasps (Hall, Foster, and Gardiner) B+
11. Senators (Lindberg, Khabibulin, and Moog) B
12. Winnipeg Jets (Durnan, Worters, and Benedict) B

Every time I look at this I move a team, so I'm going to post this so I can stop.

 

[monkey_00*]

Or that could be that the posters on this board are generally 15-18 year old males who feel as though they can judge players they know nothing about.... a better question would involve how many people have even heard of Conacher. I guarentee you that you would find the results would indicate that most would not have heard of him, and well if they did they wouldn't be able to tell you a thing about the player.

The last time I checked that Poll there were at least 24 people that selected Pavel Bure over Charlie Conacher.........what are you saying here?........that you know more than those 24 people combined?.......I don't think so bro......nice try.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

The last time I checked that Poll there were at least 24 people that selected Pavel Bure over Charlie Conacher.........what are you saying here?........that you know more than those 24 people combined?.......I don't think so bro......nice try.

Huh? I don't follow your logic with the combined thing.... are you saying you know more than 8 people combined when you say that Bure was better?

I how many of those posters have heard of Conacher... I really question the number. In fact in the Hockey News 100 Best players they didn't have Bure even listed, but Conacher was in at number 36..... are you saying you know more than the 50 experts such as John Davidson, Al Arbour, Dick Irvan, Howie Meeker, Red Storey, Brian Burke, roger Neilson (RIP), Glen Sather, Stan Fischler, and Scotty Bowman? Nice try..... bro

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

BM thanks for the list, I really think that you have Calgary a bit to high, but to each their own..... I know you don't really like Tretiak anyways so I could see the lower ranking coming from a mile away, but I thought that having Sawchuk would have helped my standing a bit more than it did, but oh well.

It really is hard trying to rank the teams because most have strengths and weaknesses, and all that good stuff.

 

[monkey_00*]

Huh? I don't follow your logic with the combined thing.... are you saying you know more than 8 people combined when you say that Bure was better?

I how many of those posters have heard of Conacher... I really question the number. In fact in the Hockey News 100 Best players they didn't have Bure even listed, but Conacher was in at number 36..... are you saying you know more than the 50 experts such as John Davidson, Al Arbour, Dick Irvan, Howie Meeker, Red Storey, Brian Burke, roger Neilson (RIP), Glen Sather, Stan Fischler, and Scotty Bowman? Nice try..... bro

Benton Fraser...................

...................and there lies the problem right there.......the older guys don't want to admit that those "ancient wonders" from the past are not as good on average to the top stars of today.........you were using that book as a reference for your rankings...........that is mistake #1 on your part.......Oh and by the way I have that book too.........How come you are only giving us a partial list of the guys that were involved with that Poll?...............Don Cherry voted too.....Cherry always gives us an UNBIASED opinion of players right?..........ESPECIALLY the Europeans and the Swedes............Harry Sinden voted too.......heh heh heh.............

The other mistake that you're making is you're assuming that everybody that voted for Pavel Bure over Charlie Conacher is 15 years old and younger which is absolute total nonsense on your part........if someone agrees with your assesment than they really know their hockey right?.........HOWEVER, if they disagree with you then according to your logic they must either be "Ignorant" OR under the age of 15-years..........heh heh heh........too funny........

Thanks man..........I really needed the laughs for tonight.

Cheers!

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Ok so you are making the assumption that everyone who lives and breaths hockey is biased towards the older players, and as a result their opinion is not worth the time of day. Personally I would value their opinion over someone who likely is around the age of 15 and for all intents and purposes is ignorant towards the past. Hell how many people on a board dedicated towards hoceky prospects are likely to know anything about players from years gone by. There is a reason behind my statement. I would strongly suggest that in the future you make polls public so we could see who was voting for the different players.

You seem to have taken an arbitrary point and said, this is when hockey players began to be good, and everyone before sucked.... except a few players. There is no basis for your arguement.... why don't players from the 80s suck, was there really a big difference between the 80s players and the 70s?

 

[monkey_00*]

Ok so you are making the assumption that everyone who lives and breaths hockey is biased towards the older players, and as a result their opinion is not worth the time of day. Personally I would value their opinion over someone who likely is around the age of 15 and for all intents and purposes is ignorant towards the past. Hell how many people on a board dedicated towards hoceky prospects are likely to know anything about players from years gone by. There is a reason behind my statement. I would strongly suggest that in the future you make polls public so we could see who was voting for the different players.

You seem to have taken an arbitrary point and said, this is when hockey players began to be good, and everyone before sucked.... except a few players. There is no basis for your arguement.... why don't players from the 80s suck, was there really a big difference between the 80s players and the 70s?

Benton Fraser.............

I'm not talking about the players from the 1970s and 1980s cause I think those players from 1967 onwards were awsome........you can have a team of 1970s allstars compete against a team of allstars from the 1980s and it would be very evenly matched IMO.........I like the Bobby Orrs and the Guy LaFleurs.......I've told you that a number of times already........the difference between me and you two guys (BM67 included) is that you think the stars from the 1930s like Charlie Conacher are BETTER than the modern day superstars like a Pavel Bure.......come on!.........give me a break.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Your entire arguement is based on generalizations and not knowing anything about the players though.... what makes 1967 a great year for hockey. In fact I woul dbet that in 1966 the compitition was better than in 1967 because there was a lesser tallent pool. Your arguement makes no sense from a logical perspective. Why does more players = better top tallent in the league.

 

[monkey_00*]

Your entire arguement is based on generalizations and not knowing anything about the players though.... what makes 1967 a great year for hockey. In fact I woul dbet that in 1966 the compitition was better than in 1967 because there was a lesser tallent pool. Your arguement makes no sense from a logical perspective. Why does more players = better top tallent in the league.

Benton Fraser..........

I feel that the modern day players are far superior talent-wise than the players from the NHLs distant past.......I chose 1967 cause that's when the League went from 6-teams to 12.........ok so maybe the first couple of seasons the overall talent level was diluted but by the time we get to the mid 1970s it was a more competitive NHL.........me personally I think that the Montreal Canadiens of the 1970s, that dynasty team that won 4-straight Cups with Dryden Lafleur and Robinson was much better hockey club than anything they had in the 1960s and this includes the Toronto Maple Leafs from the 1960s (and I'M a Leafs fan too) but at least I'm a realist.......everytime the League adds more teams the overall talent pool gets diluted but then after a couple of seasons or so the entire League once again becomes more competitive.....the expansion teams get better and not only compete for the Stanley Cup but as well go on to win them too......like the Flyers did in the 1970s......and Tampa Bay Lightning did last season.........

Today's NHL has more players.....and more BETTER players........todays NHL also includes the best from the ENTIRE world like Russia, Sweden, Finland and the rest of Europe.......the NHL didn't have foreign-born hockey superstars play in their League........does this mean that they weren't good enough?.....no.....case in point those touring Soviet teams like Red Army and Moscow Dynamo......these guys had an overall better win-loss record than the NHL clubs that they competed against........PLUS today there are more superstar netminders in the NHL......today we have guys like Brodeur, Hasek, Belfour, Luongo, Khabibulin, Theodore, Boucher, Vokoun, etc, etc.......there has never been any ERA in the NHL like today with so many GREAT netminders........PLUS the influx of the Europeans and Russians in todays NHL has helped to raise the level of play for everybody including the Canadian-born NHL hockey players........you ever notice how the NHL was very exciting brand of hockey to watch in the 1980s?......and you wonder why that is?........It's because that's when the NHL started to add the Russians and the Europeans in great numbers............first we saw the guys who played on the Russian KLM line (Krutov-Larionov-Makarov) as well as Fetisov for New jersey on defence........over in Edmonton we had Jari Kurri play alongside of Wayne Gretzky and his fellow countryman Esa Tikkanen joined the team thereafter very shortly........over in Quebec with the Nordiques we had the 3-Stastny brothers........etc, etc.....and today who has been winning the Norris trophy the last few years?.......and what country does he come from?......how about the Selke trophy?......where's he from?.....Pavel Bure won the Rocket Richard trophy TWICE and that's in an NHL with all those great goaltenders.....he's Russian........How many Russians and Europeans played in the NHL pre-1967?.........maybe one and his name was Stan Mikita and he grew up in St.Catherines Ontario (which is only 20-minutes east of us here in Hamilton)..........

In concluding......the talent level in todays NHL is far more superior than it was in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s........the players train all year long which they didn't do in the past.........they also have better trainers and coaches....better training methods........the players on average have also gotten bigger, stronger and faster......the players today are also alot better because they also play ALOT more games in the NHL then they did in the past.......more regular season games......more playoff games; in the past all you had to do was win 2-rounds of hockey and then you win the Stanley Cup......NOW it's a Four round marathon.......plus they play in Olympics, World Cups of Hockey, Canada Cups etc, etc.......many more hockey tournaments.........

I still don't think the 1930s NHL superstar Charlie Conacher was better hockey player than the modern day NHL superstar Pavel Bure...........No Sireee.

Cheers!

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

But then why does that not follow the statistics. As I mentioned earlier Canadians and Americans (only group that played in the NHL) constitute roughly 60-65% of the NHL today. Now at the same time the NHL has been able to become six times as big as it once was. I just don't see how you can use numbers in order to justify players form earlier eras are not as good as players from current eras... when in fact the numbers support the idea that there was a smaller tallent base for the teams to chose from, making the league more competitive, and in theory making the players from earlier eras playing in a better league.

Doesn't expansion result in all teams becoming worse and that is what creates the parody, not expansion resulting in more tallent per team. In fact how does adding 30 new players into the NHL who otherwise would not be there result in the tallent level increasing, wouldn't it have the opposite effect.... how does it equal out?

Really reaching into the bag now eh? Playing around 20 more games in the NHL today results in players being worlds ahead of players from other eras. Plus if you want to talk about physically demanding, I would strongly suggest that you read into the physical play in the 1930-1960 NHL where they were tough, and didn't have to play with the body armour, or hell even helmets that they play with today. You mention that one has more games, but at the same time you forget there are factors associated with playing less games that makes the league tougher to play in.

 

[monkey_00*]

But then why does that not follow the statistics. As I mentioned earlier Canadians and Americans (only group that played in the NHL) constitute roughly 60-65% of the NHL today. Now at the same time the NHL has been able to become six times as big as it once was. I just don't see how you can use numbers in order to justify players form earlier eras are not as good as players from current eras... when in fact the numbers support the idea that there was a smaller tallent base for the teams to chose from, making the league more competitive, and in theory making the players from earlier eras playing in a better league.

You continue to ignore the simple fact that the players today are better conditioned...better trained athletes...and this is not only for the NHL level of play but right down to the grass-roots level as well...right from when the kids get started with the sport they are better equipped, trained hockey players then the kids were before 1967 and ESPECIALLY the kids from the early part of the last Century.........haven't you heard of the saying that "Practice makes perfect?"......the more you practice at ANYTHING the better at it you will become.......the kids and the grown-ups that play hockey today play and PRACTICE a hell of alot more than they did in the past...thus making them better...........

The greats from the past were greats in their days but where you continue to make the miskate is you think that the greats from the past are EQUAL to the greats from today which they are not.......for example, let's take one of the great defencemen from the NHLs distant past.....the name I would like to use as an example over here is Earl Seibert.......Seibert played his NHL hockey between the years of 1931-to-1944...Seibert has also been selected to Allstar teams a total of 10-times (4 first teams/ 6-second teams) which is third among NHL defencemen alltime......only Raymond Bourque and Doug Harvey have been selected to more allstar teams by a defencemen.........now again keep in mind that he was selected to allstar teams in the 1930s and 1940s when they only played between 40-to-50 games a season compared to the 80+ games schedule played now by todays NHL players...let's pretend now that I am a scientist and I just finished inventing a time machine........I go back in time and I bring back Seibert from his best season of 1941-42 to play in the NHL for the 2004 season...now keep in mind that back then they didn't award the Norris trophy for defencemen but Seibert would have been the odds on favorite to win it that season...last season 2004 Scott Niedermayer of the New Jersey Devils wins the Norris and Zdeno Chara and Niklas Lidstrom are both the runner-ups...Do you think Seibert if he played with these 3 guys TODAY that he even finishes in the top-3 voting for best defencemen in the NHL?......No he doesn't...and if you think so then you are only kidding yourself.......

Another example...I send both Lidstrom and Chara back in my time machine back to the 1941-42 NHL season in which Seibert is voted onto the NHLs 1st allstar team......does Seibert still get selected to the 1st allstar team that season with both Chara and Lidstrom playing in the NHL in 1941-42?.....No.....both Seibert and Blackjack Stewart who were voted that season to the NHLs 1st allstar team get knocked down to the 2nd allstar team......why?....cause they are not as good as Lidstrom and Chara.........

Getting back to Seibert.....he gets elected to NHL allstar teams a total of 10-times in his career between the 1940s and 50s.....If he plays his NHL hockey today in modern times does he get selected to NHL allstar teams the same amount of times that he does in the past?.......No.....why not?......because he simply has a MUCH LARGER pool of TALENTED hockey players in the NHL to compete against for selection to the NHL allstar team then he did in the past.....PLAIN and SIMPLE...........

Doesn't expansion result in all teams becoming worse and that is what creates the parody, not expansion resulting in more tallent per team. In fact how does adding 30 new players into the NHL who otherwise would not be there result in the tallent level increasing, wouldn't it have the opposite effect.... how does it equal out?

Expansion dilutes the overall talent level of the League yes but only for a short while.....like I've been saying all along the talent level in the NHL has gotten alot better since the early days......now that's not to say that if we were to draw a line graph to monitor the improvement of the overall level of play in the NHL that this line would continue to go in an UPWARD motion with no dips or leveling off in some of the NHLs early years.....The talent level has gotten better yes......everytime the NHL expands the talent level gets diluted for a short while SO......If I were to draw a line graph to monitor the progress of the NHL talent level over the years my line graph would look something like this:

WE first start out in the early 1900s and line on my graph moves upward slowly indicating to you that the talent levels are getting better until we reach the War years like World War II when alot of the NHLers had to serve duty in the military (except if you are the Montreal Canadiens...BUT that's ANOTHER story for another time)...during the Wars years most of the NHL superstars are gone off to War and the line on my graph dips downwards.....next the War is over and the players come back the talent levels once again are improved and the line on my graph continues now to move in an upward motion and really hits its PEAK in the 1960s when there were still only 6-teams in the NHL...tough time to crack the NHL....more players playing the sport then ever in the past but still only SIX teams in the NHL so we have a VERY COMPETITIVE League until the League EXPANDS and goes from a 6-team League to a 12-team League and the overall talent level of the NHL gets diluted because now the talent level has to be spread out and shared among TWELVE teams instead of the six like we had the year before...BUT, the diluted levels of talent starts to level off AND even starts to once again move upwards because the numbers of hockey players in North America at the grass-roots levels continues to increase....there are now at this point in hockey history MORE kids than EVER before playing the sport wanting to crack the NHL and play in that League forcing the talent levels of the NHL to once again MOVE UP and evidence of this is when the expansion teams from the late '60s not only start to compete for the Stanley Cup BUT AS WELL start to even win them like the Philadelphia Flyers did back-to-back in the 1970s.......next part of my line graph of GREAT importance is when the WHA goes belly-up and 4 of it's stronger organizations merge up with the NHL (Edmonton, Quebec, Winnipeg and Hartford).....the level of talent at this point starts to level off and slightly dips downwards again BUT at this stage of the game the line is still higher then what it was on my graph in the 1950s and 1960s.....the next part of my line graph where the line starts to go up again is when we start to get the INFLUX of the Europeans and Russians joining the NHL helping to improve the overall talent levels once more with the likes of the Makarovs, Kurris, Stastnys, Jagrs and Bures...this influx of new talent from new hockey markets helps to improve the levels of play of the North American hockey player and this includes players from Canada...........

Anyhow........basically my line graph has some dips over the years HOWEVER, Overall, the line on average on my graph has continued to go UP.

Really reaching into the bag now eh? Playing around 20 more games in the NHL today results in players being worlds ahead of players from other eras. Plus if you want to talk about physically demanding, I would strongly suggest that you read into the physical play in the 1930-1960 NHL where they were tough, and didn't have to play with the body armour, or hell even helmets that they play with today. You mention that one has more games, but at the same time you forget there are factors associated with playing less games that makes the league tougher to play in.

The players played with less amour but as well what you are neglecting to also include here is the game of hockey that we see today in 2005 is not the same hockey that we saw in the early years......rules were different....EVERYTHING was different...for example...in the early years of NHL no Slapshots were allowed in the League...you couldn't wind up for your shots....keeping this in mind how does George Hainsworth who played in an NHL where no Slapshots were allowed play in Net in 2004 against guys like Brett Hull and Al Macinnis?...PLUS the Goalies like Hainsworth didn,t even wear the mask too.......ANOTHER difference to the game that many of you may not even be aware of is there was no backwards passing allowed in the game of hockey in the early years...you could make sideways or forward passing but no backwards passing...now keeping this in mind how do the players like Charlie Conacher and Busher Jackson of the Leafs do when they have to go up against the slick passing team of those 1980s Edmonton Oilers?.......these are only a couple of examples here that I'm using and there are others I could use too BUT, I think you are now beginning to see the picture............................I hope.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

the picture that I am beginning to see is someone who knows very little about the history of hockey. First of all it was forward passing that was not allowed in the early NHL not backwards passing. Secondly you just make assumptions based on what? well no facts, no emperical evidence, you just state outright that, well Seibert isn't good at all - while you didn't even mention the type of player that he was. If you really want to know (although I will assume that you don't because that would lead to yourself having increased knowledge about the game, something you are intent on ignoring) Seibert was a rushing defenseman who was never afraid to put his body in the line of a shot (all the more impressive when you consider the equipment that he was wearing throughout his 15 year career. Why wouldn't he be physically capable I also must wonder when you consider the fact that he is 6'2 and weighed 210 pounds. That is in fact 2 inches taller than Scott Stevens, and 10 pounds more. Something tells me that this guy wasn't the short little butterball you think all hockey players from his era were.

Now you are saying he is a worse player because the league only played 48 game seasons when he was during his prime, well 48 games with the players traveling on busses, not private planes. In a condensed season (not playing in June like hockey players today) which promotes more competition, which in turn provides for a tougher league. I

you have provided no real evidence for why these palyers are such horrible players? Actually it seems as though you know nothing about the players from years past and are basing your entire arguement on a huge generalization that those players are not as good because they did play in before the 1980s.

Lastly, yes there is a bigger tallent pool, but at the same time you are completely ignoring the fact that the tallent in the NHL has become so bloody diluted by way of expansion, at a pace that as has been noted through evidence (odd concept for you to grasp I understand) excedes the influx of europeans. So if that was the case would it not become easier for those tropheys to be won. Also you just say tallent increases, but offer no explanation or reasoning... is there some sort of special magic that occurs when expansion occurs and more tallent is magically produced? Where does this apparent excess of tallent come from?

 

[monkey_00*]

the picture that I am beginning to see is someone who knows very little about the history of hockey. First of all it was forward passing that was not allowed in the early NHL not backwards passing. Secondly you just make assumptions based on what? well no facts, no emperical evidence, you just state outright that, well Seibert isn't good at all - while you didn't even mention the type of player that he was. If you really want to know (although I will assume that you don't because that would lead to yourself having increased knowledge about the game, something you are intent on ignoring) Seibert was a rushing defenseman who was never afraid to put his body in the line of a shot (all the more impressive when you consider the equipment that he was wearing throughout his 15 year career. Why wouldn't he be physically capable I also must wonder when you consider the fact that he is 6'2 and weighed 210 pounds. That is in fact 2 inches taller than Scott Stevens, and 10 pounds more. Something tells me that this guy wasn't the short little butterball you think all hockey players from his era were.

Benton Fraser...........

Oh I know my history..........ok so it was forward passing that was not allowed.......it still doesn't change the fact that the game is vastly different today then what it was in the past.....I still bring my point up of what would the early era stars like Chralie Conacher and Busher Jackson do going up against the high flying teams of those 1980s Edmonton Oilers who were allowed to pass forwards, backwards and sideways?.......they would be no match for those Edmonton Oilers who made passing an art form in the NHL.......

How come you are not admitting that Slapshots were not allowed in the NHL way back then?.......players were not allowed to wind up for their shots like they do now.....AGAIN what happens when guys like Brett Hull and Al Macinnis WIND up with one of their Big Slappers against George Hainsworth; a Goalie who played in the NHL when Slappers weren't allowed PLUS didn't use the Goalie mask???......

The only reason why you say that Seibert went down to block shots was simply because you have that book titled: The Hockey News Top 100 Players of alltime" which I also happen to own.....Seibert cracks their top-100 for 1-reason only....because he was selected to allstar teams 10-times in an NHL Era which had INFERIOR talent level in the League compared to what they have today.....PLUS the book also has this little 2-paragraph bio on the player where the books states that he was a player that liked to go down and block shots....you are only going by what that book says and you hold that book in such high regard like it's your Hockey Bible or something...........

Ya ok.......so instead of No backwards passing it was no FORWARD passing allowed.......PLUS no Slapshots allowed.......PLUS Goalies playing with no Goalie masks are THREE PRIME EXAMPLES right there for you Sir that the game of hockey in 2005 is not the same Hockey that they played in the Early years of the NHL.

Now you are saying he is a worse player because the league only played 48 game seasons when he was during his prime, well 48 games with the players traveling on busses, not private planes. In a condensed season (not playing in June like hockey players today) which promotes more competition, which in turn provides for a tougher league.

I never said he was a Bad player....Not too sure if you need to use glasses or not Maxwell BUT...If you go back and read up on what I've been saying all along with these players from the past it is this: The greats from the past were greats in their days but they are no match for the greats of today....The greats of today would DESTROY those greats from the past...the players travel longer distances today...they have more "Jetlag" then what they had in the past.........In the past when there were only SIX teams in the NHL the Western-most City in the League was CHICAGO which today is the Center of the NHL Map....More games as well today with LESS TIME BETWEEN THE GAMES to recover then what they've had in the past............sometimes the teams in todays NHL play 2-games in 3-nights.......3-games in 4-nights which they DID NOT DO back when there were only SIX teams in the NHL........you capiche?.......good.

you have provided no real evidence for why these palyers are such horrible players? Actually it seems as though you know nothing about the players from years past and are basing your entire arguement on a huge generalization that those players are not as good because they did play in before the 1980s.

I never said they were "Horrible".....now you are getting VERY desperate over here Maxwell...I know plenty about the players from the past the REAL problem here Sir is that:

(a) You think you know more than everybody...you think that you can't learn anything new from someone else....you are stuck on your biased ideas and out-dated opinions........

(b) When it comes to the Russian hockey players you admitted to everybody that you don't know much about Vladimir Lutchenko and yet you are supposed to be the Hockey Guru when it comes to the Russian hockey players........

(c) This next point should actually be the first...You seen to think that if people agree with your point of view then they must surely know their hockey HOWEVER, if they do not agree with you then they are either "ignorant" OR they are 15-years old and younger....ummmmm...Ya

(d) I've given yu PLENTY of reasons and prime examples as to why the greats from today are far superior to the greats from the past........If you want to be stubborn like a Mule and competely IGNORE my list of reasons and examples then my friend be my guest.....ok?........good.

Lastly, yes there is a bigger tallent pool, but at the same time you are completely ignoring the fact that the tallent in the NHL has become so bloody diluted by way of expansion, at a pace that as has been noted through evidence (odd concept for you to grasp I understand) excedes the influx of europeans. So if that was the case would it not become easier for those tropheys to be won. Also you just say tallent increases, but offer no explanation or reasoning... is there some sort of special magic that occurs when expansion occurs and more tallent is magically produced? Where does this apparent excess of tallent come from?

Speaking of Magic you seem to think that those ancient wonders from the 1930s and 1940s will always continue to be the best hockey players that have ever laced up a pair of skates.......ummm Ya......

There are more players from other countries like Russia and Europe.......more better trained players that train ALL YEAR ROUND.....More Bigger players.......better skating players......Better overall skill level cause they train and practice more...and the more you practice the better you get...players in the past showed up to training camps OUT OF SHAPE.....players today show up to training camp IN SHAPE simply cause they train ALL YEAR ROUND and hire for themselves personal trainers...they have better eating habits and diets...the rules are VASTLY different in todays NHL then what it was in the past....No FORWARD passing in the game....no Slapshots allowed in the NHLs distant past....No goalie masks by the netminders because there were no slappers in the early days...eventually when the slapshot gets introduced to the NHL the goalies would have to start wearing the mask like Jacques Plante did........

Nice talking to you......don't stay up all night again like you did yesterday.......It's not healthy for you ok?........good.

Cheers!

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Sorry but where are you getting this no slapshots rule from? Honestly I have never heard of it....

Do you want to know where I get my info from, Ultimate Hockey, Total Hockey, the Hockey News, and well a variety of other sources who apparently know more than you do as they do it for a living.

Don't ****ing say capiche any more and change your bloody font, it is annoying as hell, ask anyone. If you want to have a mature conversation I am 100% in favor of that, but when you say things like capiche you come off looking like a stupid POS, so stop that alright.

With regards to the forward passing, anyone who knows hockey would tell you that forward passing was first allowed in 1929-30 in order to prop up sagging goal totals. Now you state that Conacher is a lesser hockey player because he played without forward passing, yet you ignore the fact that Conacher played from 1929/30 to 1941... an era that if you knew anything featured forward passing.... so that arguement falls flat on its face.

once again i would like to ask you for a link rquesting you for a rule that was in place in the NHL that stated players were not allowed to take slap shots....

The no masks is the worst arguement that you have going for you. In this draft when ranking the teams one has to think that all the players are playing with the same equipment, and I decided to make that modern equipment. I am drafting players, not differnt companies that produce hockey equipment.

Prime examples my ass.

You basically said he was a bad player when you said how he would get destroyed by players of today. How is that not saying he is a bad player. How are they no match for the players of today. Your arguements, are well as have been noted by more than one poster weak at best, and you then rely on saying there is a personal bias when the teams were ranked.

The travel thing and jetlag arguement is fair I suspose, but I wonder how big of an effect there is with jetlag when you consider that there is a three hour time difference between EST and PST.... now if you are saying that the players of today are tough players because they are able to have this horrible jetlag of a a three hour max differnce then I sort of think you are in for a bad arguement.

More games are played today but in more time. It wasn't as though hockey used to start in september and end in june.... less games in less time still means that the players would have the same time differential between games......

You did basically say they were horrible players.....

- I don't think I know more than everyone, but it appears when you select Marty McSorley and Steve Smith I know more than you.

- I have never seen the players day in and day out. Who am I to make an accurate judgement of a player in comparison to another player? Wait doesn't this contradict your previous point about me thinking that I know more than everyone else where I have admitted that I don't know everything about a certain player who for obvious reasons I have never been able to see day in and day out.

- Your on hockeys future, do you except people who attempt to judge whether Crosby will be the next lemieux to know much about the history of hockey. Honestly I don't see what is wrong with that statement.... especially when you stated the only reason that the old guys selected these players are because they want to remind themselves ofthe glory days or something to that effect

- Well your examples are pretty weak at best for explaining how a mediocre at best player in McSorley should be considered better than players from the past, same thing with Smith.

So players of yesteryear were all fat and out of shape that is your arguement. Contrary to popular belief not ever NHL player today is the model of physical fitness..... sorry but there is something to be said for natural tallent, and you appear to think that these players were all untallented, fat, horrible players, an assessment that I do find ignorant because it shows an inability to look at the past with the least bit of appreciation.