This is a challenging team to evaluate and I think you know that, lol. Going all in on the top 4 D like that! But I appreciate the different approach so I'll start with Pittsburgh.
Let's start with the team strength, that top 4. Are they going to give you enough bang for the buck? Will they put enough pressure on the opposing team to allow your forward group to keep up?
Orr on the first pairing and, to a lesser extent, Seibert on the second pairing should provide a lot of pressure up that right side, without giving much up the other way. Alongside Orr, Stevens should provide enough puck moving at the left to keep the other team honest. And when Orr isn't caught up ice, these two should be a formidable duo when defending, with Stevens' intimidating presence constantly in the back of opponents' minds.
Really good second pairing too. The intelligent two-way game of Laperriere should mix well with the more explosive Seibert. I think Jacques Laperriere was overkill though...you don't really need his penalty killing, and I think you could have drafted someone closer to pick 200 that could fill this spot and give you more punch up front. But again it is a very good pairing.
Moving to your forwards, again the obvious point is that you don't have any top end ATD forwards. The first line is a solid group of second-tier top liners. Can Malone and Martinec carry the playmaking load for an ATD top line? This is where Bobby Orr comes in to lift this line. Joe Malone and Bobby Orr is a classic ATD combo. But I think they're a little underpowered when Orr is off the ice, lacking a bit of playmaking and a bit of two-way oomph.
I like Lemaire and Cournoyer on a second line. Great speed and shooting. They'll need some playmaking and some two-way play, and Bun Cook is actually a very good fit here. Cook and Lemaire make this a very brainy line and Cournoyer is a dangerous weapon alongside them.
Moving on to your third line, we're looking at a third scoring line here. Great speed on the wings from Crawford and Anderson, and Hawerchuk will be making the plays in the middle. I think Rusty Crawford might be a line too high though...he wasn't much of a scorer and I don't know if I'd rate him as a third liner in this size of draft. Is fast skating, hard work, and playing 30 years enough? Maybe it depends how much weight you put on his status as a HHOFer. (By the way...did you know Crawford played for teams called the Prince Albert Mintos and the Saskatoon Hoo-hoos? I think Wikipedia might be having me on.)
I would expect Poulin to end up as your fourth line centre over Goyette. You need a matchup centre and penalty killer from that spot, and Goyette is more of a two-way guy. He almost never killed penalties, I have him at 2% SH from 1959-60 on.
Overall, you got some very good value with your forward corps (especially your whole second line and Hawerchuk) to make up for the lack of high draft choices. I wish there was a bit more established two-way play from your centres and right wingers to help cover for Orr and Seibert's rushes. Some great attackers in that group but your checkers are more on the left side. I realize forwards move around and this isn't just tabletop hockey, but still.
Bower is a solid goalie in this format. He played behind a strong defensive group in Toronto and he's doing that here too. Expect Holmes to play a fair bit too.
Pete Green was a great coach but I don't know if your team has as much two-way ability from the forwards as he would like. On the other hand, he's one of the better choices to be creative with this defence corps and find ways to create pressure from the back.
I wouldn't have set up the special teams exactly the same but I'm not going to nit-pick. Orr, Malone, and Cournoyer on the first power play is very dangerous. I feel like I'd want to find room for Dale Hawerchuk and his playmaking on the top unit, and I think you are missing a bit of high-end playmaking for the power play as a result of your draft strategy. The penalty killing defencemen are ridiculous. They're so good it seems like overkill. And you could use a bit of help up front (again, Phil Goyette is not an ATD penalty killer). Could Pete Green roll out a penalty kill with Bobby Orr or Earl Seibert at a forward position? I wouldn't bet against it!
Also, thanks for running the draft! Much appreciated.
Thanks OP! As always, I greatly appreciate the feedback from a person of your caliber. And it's my pleasure to administer the draft. I'm fortunate to have a life/job that makes it an easier task than many I'm guessing so I don't mind doing it in the least!
Haha, well I think the reaction post Seibert pick was everything I was hoping for when I decided to go that route. I had mentioned to another poster before the draft that I'd be doing something pretty wild, and I think it even rings truer having been blessed with a premium starting position.
I hesitated a little bit after Theo announced me at 1. It would have been very easy to go with a C after Stevens. Could have taken Conacher or Geoffrion and blocked TDMM in the process from reuniting him w/ Beliveau. Nobody really stood out though in the late 40's at F that made me go, "yeah, that's incredible value" to pull me off this plan.
But Dreak taking Plante right before me removed any remaining temptation for the break from 3D to start. He was the one guy, well into the 40's that represented good value relative to where he is ranked all time.
Yeah, the Laperriere pick was one that was going to bring question marks. I absolutely knew it was going to end up as a blunder selection to some, for reasons you mentioned but the wingers at 117 weren't that intriguing and in the grand scheme don't think this decision was all that make or break (based on how much value I got at F later on)
Syd Howe - Was the guy I looked at the hardest but his offense isn't that impressive relative to the multi faceted players you can get way later in the draft. You might sacrifice 10-12% in offensive value but those players you are getting 100+ picks later are likely going to bring as much skillset beyond offense. And in a draft this size, I banked on getting the value at F.
Shanahan? Didn't fit what I wanted on the wings. Offense isn't great there.
Olmstead? Same problem as Shanny.
Hossa? The 2nd most likely pick for me there but again, I looked at being able to get Martinec 30 picks later and I think him superior anyway now that we know a lot more about his defensive and penalty killing prowess. And both Martinec and my backup plan (Maltsev) were both on the board thankfully at 144. So that decision paid off IMO.
C's didn't do much for me there either, especially after I had just landed Malone, who as Dreak pointed out, was really the last upper tier offensive #1 caliber C left. And C is incredibly deep. One thing I've really bought into as a GM, especially in a sub 30 team draft. You can wait on C's.
You had the Francis, Ullman, Lindros, Keon crowd available. At 117? None of them made me jump out of my seat.
A goalie wasn't drafted for another 21 picks as I expected and taking one at 117 would have been the wrong choice especially given the top 4 I had assembled at that point. Pre draft I had my eyes set on a Brimsek to Bower level goalie, depending on value mostly.
So it really came down to Laperriere and Ivan Johnson at 117.
There would have been the obvious chemistry with Seibert and Johnson, however if you read a lot on the latter, he wasn't exactly a pure stay at home player. Not as I had thought in years past, especially during the first few years Seibert was there as a youngster.
Look at the 32 (Johnson outscored Seibert), 33 (Johnson outscored Seibert by a lot), 34 (now Seibert takes over the offensive role). Same story in 35. As I said, you see a lot of instances where Johnson was used in an offensive manner by Patrick, namely in his best season, 1932. Johnson gets typecast as a pure stay at home type, but he really wasn't that, not until his last few seasons.
He made plenty of long rushes, was a robust checker as in he went out looking for them. I didn't really want another player from the same time period, one that wasn't always used in the traditional safe role next to a player with the rushing/offensive abilities that Seibert possessed. Plus Seibert's peak came post Johnson anyway.
Laperriere has the quantifiable PK numbers that bear him out to be on the greatest ever there. So depending on match up, how long a series goes on, he's clearly capable of playing up on the 1st unit with Stevens or Orr, thus easing the burden on those 2 over the course of a playoff run.
His ES TOI/usage is off the charts good, especially when you consider how much special teams time he was logging for Blake and company. He's not a typical 2nd pairing type as I think him capable of handling a more traditional #2 type load just based on the fact we have the studies to bear it out, thanks to you actually! 47% of ES. 76% of PK and 50% of the PP. One of the biggest workloads ever, post 1960.
He and Seibert make for a very large pair. And his style is that of a really smart player. Absolutely capable of laying out the big hit, but not something he goes out looking for, especially when you're skating next to someone capable of doing that himself with relative ease. Postionally very strong with a long/active stick. Elite shot blocker. He was a noted breakout linchpin for the Habs, his passing being cited often as being very strong. His Norris/AS record is fabulous for a guy who didn't put up big offensive totals and I really like the way his game is described as being unflappable. Just a calming presence on the back end.
I think he really allows Seibert to get more aggressive offensively and you know Lappy will be in the right spot more often than not.
Deep scouting report on them both? Elite shot blockers, often cited as being one of the best of their era. Not only is it a tough nut to crack on the whole, getting consistent rubber on the net won't be a walk in the park either.
Just to drive home how great an advantage this pairing is relative to the league. It's better than all but 9, maybe 10 top pairings IMO. And even as a 2nd pair, they are capable of playing #1 pair minutes as they would be doing for anyone in a normal circumstance. Orr and Seibert should eat up at least 55 minutes a night without raising any eyebrows. Stevens-Lappy should push 50, and easily hit 47/48 a night at a minimum combined.
This made the 3rd pairing more or less irrelevant (able to take a more specific player like Hollett).
A big factor to my decision to go this route was the idea that having a dominant 2nd pair presented enormous challenges for the opposing team.
Even taking the best lines in the draft? Say Abel-Beliveau-Geo or Lindsay-Francis-Richard? You'll never get them away from Stevens-Orr or Lappy-Seibert. There are no easy shifts against a below average 2nd pair or weak 3rd pair. I think this is a big factor in projecting output from the other team.
Beliveau and company sometimes struggled against big, physical defensemen. Stevens fits the bill. Hell, he's one of the writers.
Seibert was bigger than 99% of the players in his day. Elite physicality, all time great policeman which is a nice bonus given his star status. And despite being a huge player, he was widely regarded as one of the best skaters of the entire 30's.
When Shore and Horner wanted no part of him, you know he was a bad man haha. Favorite quote by Shore actually:
It's lucky he was a calm boy, because if he ever got mad, he'd have killed us all.
And collectively, despite having great size and more than enough physicality to go around, you'll be hard pressed to find a better group of skaters.
It's a group capable of playing and dominating any style IMO.
Responding to the forward comments:
I think while name recognition will sell my forwards short (how can they not going so many D early haha), when you actually tally up their offensive totals and VsX and more importantly, even strength, folks will end up being surprised how well they stack up, largely because I was able to get fortunate with a few value picks but also have a stronger than usual scoring conglomerate in the bottom 6 and the added impact of Orr.
| Name | VsX7 | ESVsX |
| Malone | 90-95* | 62* |
| Martinec | 85-90* | 58* |
| Bucyk | 88.7 | 60 |
| Hawerchuk | 86.0 | 58 |
| Lemaire | 77.9 | 55 |
| Cournoyer | 77.1 | 48 |
| Cook | 76.3 | 51* |
| Goyette | 75.2 | 51 |
| Tanguay | 73.4 | 58 |
| Anderson | 72.9 | 55 |
| Guerin | 64.1 | 48 |
| Crawford | TBD | TBD |
| Metz | 51.6 | 41* |
| Poulin | 46.9 | 42 |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
*estimated value
Dreak gave Malone a Boucher level offensive grade when the pick was announced so I have him as a 90 to 95, 7 year type player on a traditional VsX scale.
Martinec 85-90 seems like a very legitimate range, especially considering who he ranks near all time, and his scoring exploits on the whole.
To calculate the ES VsX for Malone/Martinec/Cook I took the player's average between floor and ceiling (92.5 in Malone's case) and multiplied it by .33 (33%) to signify a pretty robust PP share I think fair from a cross era standpoint. Thus coming up with a 62 ES VsX total.
If anyone thinks these off base, please let me know. I don't think any of the * are outlandish or over exaggerated but absolutely want the feedback and reasoning if they are thought of as such.
***This doesn't include Metz who scored just under 20% of his points on the PP so his ES number was rather easy to calculate.
Now throw in Bobby Orr:
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Name[/TD][TD]VsX7[/TD][TD]ESVsX[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Orr[/TD][TD]114.8[/TD][TD]64[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
This is the great equalizer in many respects. I have the 3 top line forwards at a cumulative 180 ES score. Throw in 64 from Orr and you're up to
244 ESVsX
Straight VsX and you're going 92.5, 88.7, and 87.5 + Orr's 114.8 =
383.5 VsX7
So any time Orr is on the ice, this group is almost surely going to overtake most other top lines + their top Dman.
Take for example your team:
Mike Bossy = 94.8
Denis Savard = 85.5
Dickie Moore = 85.4
=
265.7
What's interesting is even without Orr, taking the floor on Malone (90) and Martinec (85) along with Bucyk (87.8) and you get
262.8
So even without Orr the difference is basically nothing. Adding Orr, who will be on the ice with the top line on more than half their shifts certainly, drives that figure into the upper 300's.
Even taking a more dominant scoring top line the gap isn't all that great:
Lindsay 104.4
Richard 102.4
Francis 87.4
=
294.2
Now their top threat from the back end is Gadsby. I'll just give him a 60, which I know isn't accurate (too high) to illustrate how much Orr changes the landscape.
294.2 + 60 (Gadsby) =
354.2
Now compare that again with Orr + my top line:
Straight VsX and you're going 92.5, 88.7, and 87.5 + Orr's 114.8 =
383.5
Now obviously Orr isn't going to be on the ice every single shift the top line is, but it will be a significant portion AND Orr's presence also aids any other line naturally so he benefits the entire team, rather than a star forward who's relegated to a single point of impact.
Orr is like throwing a Jagr out there for every line. A Jagr who is the greatest skater ever, and still managing to be strong player defensively. Seibert provides a really nice 2nd pairing offensive catalyst as well from the back end without being a liability going back to his own end.
As far as right wingers go, Martinec was a pretty strong defensive player. Anderson was a 200 foot wrecking ball on jets for skates. And while Guerin is no shutdown type, he'll back check consistently and put a body on people in his limited role on the right side.
The big thing I wanted on the right wings was speed. LOTS of it to mesh with potential rushes of Orr/Seibert on breakouts and counters. And I don't think any team can come close to replicating Martinec, Cournoyer and Anderson 1 through 3. This inherently should put teams on notice you likely aren't going to fare very well being overly aggressive on that side of the rink.
Plenty of 2 way hockey players though.
Lemaire profiles as a plus defensive C.
Bucyk can be counted on
Martinec is a plus
Cook is obviously strong defensively
Crawford and Anderson are both easy pluses
Metz is very good defensively and unlike a lot of stereotypical checkers, possess nice complimentary offensive abilities.
Goyette looks like a strong 200 foot player at ES. Above average defensively.
Even Malone was shown to back check at an acceptable rate thanks to your research. Hawerchuk was thought well enough to play that checking role for team Canada. Cournoyer was a constant on Scotty Bowman's 70's teams so while he started out as a negative in the 60's, he clearly demonstrated an ability to improve.
With the top 4 I have in place, the need for a bunch of typical shut down types wasn't nearly as necessary IMO. Above you can clearly see that in fact I think Pittsburgh has a bevy of 2 way hockey types, with a few being very strong defensively. There isn't a line that doesn't have a better than average defensive conscious on it and in fact a couple of the lines have multiple players in that category.
Special teams I went back and forth on a little bit. I didn't have Bucyk on the 1st PP unit originally but thought better of it the last few days.
Bucyk is really good on the PP and despite Martinec being an obvious superior talent offensively, I think you'd be wasting some of JB's value as a player, not getting him out there with his obvious catalyst in real life, Bobby Orr. Bucyk will win most battles in the corner when the puck goes in those areas. He's a good facilitator of the puck for a winger and the usage/results on the PP speak for themselves. Also finished top 10 in PP goals 6 separate times so he wasn't a stranger to getting a a decent amount there.
I like having Seibert out there with his blistering shot in an Ovechkin like role. Getting a breakaway on Orr/Seibert is going to be rare. Counroyer is a must on a top unit and with guys like Orr and Bucyk specifically getting him the puck inside, like his chances to pot some goals from the slot. Malone taking on the Espo role seems like a quality fit as well given his ability to put the puck in the net especially from closer ranges. Nobody tilts the PP like Orr. You have a pair of great goal scorers at F. The premium PP goal scorer among pre WII blue liners (Seibert) and Bucyk who's value is tied heavily to Orr, would seem to be in great position to max his output here.
Pete Green was such a versatile coach. I mean the obvious big reveal was his role in the 2nd dynasty, but what I honestly found most impressive was the multiple of ways he used players. He used an aggressive but 3rd forward high system during his first run as coach. Basically you saw defensemen rushing hard and a forward used as a trailing, man high concept, be it a center or winger. If you look at the Pitt roster, you see numerous players capable of doing this on the forward line, which was no accident on my part.
During the 2nd dynasty you saw numerous mentions of him matching players specifically to opponents (shadow/line matching). Obviously during this period you had Frank Nighbor and a rink that allowed them to play the trap (kitty bar the door) to near perfection, with C's taking on very robust role defensively speaking.
It's not often you see coaches able to implement and make work multiple styles of hockey. You saw the conversion of Cyclone Taylor to the blue line, in large part to take advantage of his blinding speed and skill. Taylor was having some issues acclimating to Ottawa's system upon arrival and Green though it best to move him to the back end to give Taylor more ice to use that skating specifically. Obviously the move paid off and he was used in this type of role even after leaving Ottawa a few years later.
Green was just so far ahead of anyone else during pre consolidation in terms of tactical strategy, finding and developing players, and his reputation was clearly shown to be that of a beloved head coach, a man of pretty hard line policies but highly respected by players he coached and even those on other rosters (Cleghorn for example) and the peers of the business (Gorman/Patrick spoke glowingly post death).
He's one of those coaches I think you can put out there with most types of rosters and he'd find a way to make it work, outside of going with a pure 80's style team.
Anyway, thank you again for the review! I know it's a bit long winded but I figure this is a good place to get the ball rolling on where I am with this particular roster. It was definitely a fun one to build and a challenge given the unorthodox start.
