ATD 2021 Assassination Thread

[BenchBrawl]

PK Subban seems to be getting a rough ride here. As you said, his voting record speaks for itself. There was a 5-6 year stretch where he was a legit top guy. He’s sucked lately, but that doesn’t erase the good stuff. No different than any other short peak player IMO.

My problem with Subban isn't his play, but his questionable reputation in the lockerroom. His resume is good enough to be on a bottom-pairing, but in a perfect world I'd avoid prima donnas or the likes among my role players. That's why I said he'd be more suited as a #1D in the MLD, where his suspected warts would be well compensated by his talent.

On the positive side, Subban was a clutch player who elevated his play in the big moments.

 

[Dreakmur]

My problem with Subban isn't his play, but his questionable reputation in the lockerroom. His resume is good enough to be on a bottom-pairing, but in a perfect world I'd avoid prima donnas or the likes among my role players. That's why I said he'd be more suited as a #1D in the MLD, where his suspected warts would be well compensated by his talent.

On the positive side, Subban was a clutch player who elevated his play in the big moments.

I think he’s a distraction at times, but I haven’t heard anything about being a bad team guy.

There’s room for a few high maintenance players on most teams. Too many is a problem, I agree, but one or two is manageable.

 

[Professor What]

You don't have many good PK forwards, do you? I think Ted Lindsay might be your best. Noble is good. After that, I'm not sure who I'd use ahead of Francis. I don't think Duff was a regular PKer. Hunter, Martin, and Bondra were not.

Bondra was a regular PKer. A Google search will turn up plenty of evidence of that very quickly, but here and here are a couple of references. He played on it enough to be 16th all time in shorties and he led the league in that stat in 1994-95. Hunter doesn't seem to have done it as much later in his career if shorthanded points are any indication, but he seems to have spent some time on it early on. He got nearly 10% of his points on the PK in 1981-82, and for a few years starting there, he picked up a few every year. But the thing I'm going for with both him and Martin is their faceoff ability, and they do have good defensive reputations.

 

[Dreakmur]

Bondra was a regular PKer. A Google search will turn up plenty of evidence of that very quickly, but here and here are a couple of references. He played on it enough to be 16th all time in shorties and he led the league in that stat in 1994-95. Hunter doesn't seem to have done it as much later in his career if shorthanded points are any indication, but he seems to have spent some time on it early on. He got nearly 10% of his points on the PK in 1981-82, and for a few years starting there, he picked up a few every year. But the thing I'm going for with both him and Martin is their faceoff ability, and they do have good defensive reputations.

The PK usage charts don't even include any of those guys.

NHL tracked ice time for most of Bondra's career. He did kill penalties, but he was only once one one his his team's top-4 pk forwards.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think the issue w/ Subban is even when he was a Norris caliber player, he still seemed to make more mental blunders than your average top 3 Dman in the league. And the last few seasons, he's been somewhere between meh and awful.

So you absolutely have to consider the peak (3 good/great seasons by ATD standards) but conversely his downward trend has been pretty abrupt and steep. Can't really say it's an age thing either.

And being traded twice couldn't really help his case in the character department. Still, I never dock a guy too much unless it's basically irrefutable proof that they were a cancer, so while I consider it slightly here, it's not something I'm going to write him off because of. I absolutely think Subban is a likely douche of some sort but without the actual knowledge it's hard to quantify a value.

Plus Gretzky is a hellova leader. His presence alone should spark the fire in the other guys.

He's just one of those guys I'd feel "dirty" having on my roster in an ATD. But I think if he's sheltered and can help somewhere like the PP, he's a perfectly acceptable bottom pairing guy this year.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think the issue w/ Subban is even when he was a Norris caliber player, he still seemed to make more mental blunders than your average top 3 Dman in the league. And the last few seasons, he's been somewhere between meh and awful.

So you absolutely have to consider the peak (3 good/great seasons by ATD standards) but conversely his downward trend has been pretty abrupt and steep. Can't really say it's an age thing either.

And being traded twice couldn't really help his case in the character department. Still, I never dock a guy too much unless it's basically irrefutable proof that they were a cancer, so while I consider it slightly here, it's not something I'm going to write him off because of. I absolutely think Subban is a likely douche of some sort but without the actual knowledge it's hard to quantify a value.

Plus Gretzky is a hellova leader. His presence alone should spark the fire in the other guys.

He's just one of those guys I'd feel "dirty" having on my roster in an ATD. But I think if he's sheltered and can help somewhere like the PP, he's a perfectly acceptable bottom pairing guy this year.

While he was prone to bad decisions, he was actually a really good matchup defenseman for a few years. Those mistakes don’t erase the mostly good play.

He’s cocky. That rubs people the wrong way.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I think he’s a distraction at times, but I haven’t heard anything about being a bad team guy.

There’s room for a few high maintenance players on most teams. Too many is a problem, I agree, but one or two is manageable.

Regardless, it's not a big deal.

 

[MadArcand]

The PK usage charts don't even include any of those guys.

NHL tracked ice time for most of Bondra's career. He did kill penalties, but he was only once one one his his team's top-4 pk forwards.

Interesting that he somehow managed to end up 16th all-time in SHG then.

 

[Dreakmur]

Interesting that he somehow managed to end up 16th all-time in SHG then.

Interesting would be the correct word. Bondra is a guy who should be a 3rd unit PKer, mostly for occasions where you need a SH goal. He’s good at scoring short handed, but not particularly good at actually killing penalties. I have Marchand and Gretzky in that role on my team.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Some "short-day" [daylight savings time- a peculiarly North American abomination] observations:

At the risk of giving aid to my Division Rivals (and really, I agree with many that it should be more about learning about the players and less about 'winning-the-game')...

Apropos Orillia- one year, I'd really like to see the GM who drafts Charlie Conacher really lean into the long-held viewpoint that he was a Defensive Un-Conscience-- which to my mind looks like a narrative that has as its central underpinning the self-justifying prose of one dude.

It's a heavy lift- putting the banderillas into an entrenched viewpoint always is. To me, the biggest problem with Conacher wasn't his defense- it was the fact that he played tough and physical, paid a price for doing so, and would miss time due to injury in his or any era.

[In reality, the fact that he missed the time he did simplifies the process of looking at how teams performed in his absence.]

Apropos Gallifey- I don't know why someone would have Tony Esposito in a line-up if not to start at least 60% of Regular Season games- and get out there and be the Regular Season beast that he's historically proven to be. I'd advocate at least two-thirds/one-third mix for Tony O/Thompson.

In news outside the Hewitt Division, I had another look back on the Bobby Hull career, and saw that he sure wasn't given much in the way of continuity for RW line-mates. Even the Jim Pappin 'MPH-Line' configuration wasn't as much of a going concern as one might think, given the nickname.

I had withheld opining on the Maroons power-play... but you could add me to the list of skeptics re: the use of Morenz on PP1 and PK1.

 

[tinyzombies]

My problem with Subban isn't his play, but his questionable reputation in the lockerroom. His resume is good enough to be on a bottom-pairing, but in a perfect world I'd avoid prima donnas or the likes among my role players. That's why I said he'd be more suited as a #1D in the MLD, where his suspected warts would be well compensated by his talent.

On the positive side, Subban was a clutch player who elevated his play in the big moments.

Weise and Laraque both seem to think the problem was management and not PK. Rinne also vouched for PK as a good teammate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the review, Bench Brawl. It's pretty fair. I'll answer a few things:

Russell Bowie was one of my favorite picks of the draft, for reasons more mystical than rational. I just feel he made your team significantly better visually from what it was up to that point, and put you back in the mix of contenders. Not sure I like him with Maltsev there though, as both read as soft and poor defensively. Am I wrong? Smokey Harris brings the intangibles but he is kindda weak as a 2nd liner there, especially covering for what I suspect are two unidimensional players. Neither have much meat in terms of clutch performances neither. Maybe I am reading both of them wrong, I never had any of these guys. Overall I see it as a line that needs to be sheltered. Good offensively for sure, but not sure they will be in the pluses at ES.

After my snafu last time I drafted Maltsev when we (I was teamed with Dreakmur, but this was mostly my fault) waited too long for a #2C and had to use Maltsev there, I was determined to use him at RW this time. Petrov, Nedomansky, and Bowie were the guys I targeted as my #2C next to Malstev, so I was glad to get the last of the 3 left. Anyway to the line:

I see Maltev and Bowie as both soft, but only Bowie as weak defensively. Maybe I'm reading too much into Maltsev's puck possession penalty killing: Study of the penalty killing of Soviet forwards during the 1960-1990 time frame.

But yes, Harris is clearly the spear carrier for the line. I traded up for him because he has a pretty unique skillset - good defensively, really physical, pass-first. Yeah, his offense isn't great, but it's ok - I know in the last ATD some of us settled on "Baldy Northcott level" offense for him. Maybe he's a little lower than that, it's tough to tell for sure with the secondary players of the pre-consolidation era.

1st PP is obviously very strong. Béliveau a very top PP forward, and Geoffrion-Pilote are great PP pointmen. Maltsev and Abel are alright, though I wonder if you shouldn't put Bowie in there.

2nd PP is kind of lame, outside of Bowie, but whatever.

Bowie is obviously the centerpiece of the 2nd PP, but I see Art Ross as a big strength from the point, as well.

My thinking on Bowie is that he seemed to score a lot of goals from in close, which is Believeau's wheelhouse on the PP - so I thought I would separate them.

1st PK is great.

No idea about the 2nd PK, you tell me about it.

I think that Anze Kopitar on a 2nd wave PK is a real strength. The rest of them are pretty average for their roles, I would say:

Barry Beck killed 57% of his team's penalties (very high) over the course of his relatively short career, for average PKs overall (technically 1% worse than average). He was big and strong and excelled in front of the net.

Art Ross was noted as a good defensively player and one of the smartest players of his era.

I know Phil Watson was a regular penalty killer, his 2010 profile that I linked to mentions him getting 2 SHGs in a single game.

I also think that Patrick Marleau and Alexander Maltsev are real assets as depth PKers (do you think I should swap one into my 2nd PK unit?)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the review



I think Milt Schmidt is a great all-time leader. He didn't get the "C" until late in his career, when Boston didn't have the guns to win it all, but he was considered a great leader in Boston from a young age. Then of course, he immediately became coach, then GM, then legendary ambassador and so on. Schmidt was a no-none-sense kind of guy, who always gave his all and led by example. Reading on his career, he's pretty much the closest thing to Béliveau in terms of his overall body of work for his franchise, including post-retirement.

I didn't have time to finish everything in the Schmidt bio (still working on it), hopefully I get to it.



Bobby Hull is not Ilya Kovalchuk. This is reducing him to something he was not. Did he have some similarities with Kovalchuk? Yes. But he was a much better playmaker, more physical, more talented overall, and more intelligent. Plus he was facing much stronger competition and still looked like a man among boys.

Bauer was the playmaker of the Kraut Line but this is a bit of a caricature, Schmidt too could play with the puck. I think Schmidt is underrated, because his post-WWII years look on and off mostly because of injuries or playing defense for a part of one season.

For example, in 1947-1948, which is the only year I managed to investigate game by game, Schmidt played the first 17 games, then missed 4 games, then returned for 7 games but he was basically playing on one knee, got reinjured, missed 22 games, then returned to play the last 10 games of the season.

Visually:
Played 17 games healthy
Missed 4 games
Injured played 7 games
Missed 22 games
Played 10 games healthy

Well, the impact his presence had on the team when healthy was significant. Leaving out the 7 games he played when clearly injured and playing because the team was in a slump, he played 27 games when healthy, and missed 26 games.

Here's the Win/Loss ratios (and GF/GP and GA/GP) for the NHL in 1948, plus the With or Without Boston teams:

	GP	W/L	GF/GP	GA/GP
Toronto Maple Leafs	60	2.133	3.03	2.38
Detroit Red Wings	60	1.667	3.12	2.46
BOS with HEALTHY Schmidt	27	1.625	3.07	2.3
Boston Bruins	60	0.958	2.78	2.8
BOS Without Schmidt	26	0.818	2.69	3.16
New York Rangers	60	0.808	2.93	3.35
Montreal Canadiens	60	0.69	2.45	2.82
Chicago Black Hawks	60	0.588	3.25	3.76

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Clearly, Schmidt had a huge impact at the beginning of the season, and then when he returned healthy for the last 10 games. It's not a statistical coincidence neither, the causality was mentioned all over the newspapers after his return.

Note that 1947-1948 is one of his supposed "off-years" after the war.

It goes:

1946: Returns to NHL. Average season but makes the SC Finals.
1947: 2nd in Hart
1948: The year I just covered
1949: Missed 16 games + played defense for 15-ish games.
1950: 5th in Hart
1951: 1st in Hart
1952: 4th in Hart

So was Schmidt really on and off? To some extent yes, but not to the extent it looks on his hockeyreference page.

Wheeler: Ultimately he looks bad on a 1st line, but he is there to balance the lines. I don't think he has any warts that would make him sabotage the Hull-Schmidt duo's efficiency.



True, Roenick is nothing special, but he gives me three centers who can face big, physical centers, and three centers who can pressure the defensemen with a physical game. His value to Montreal is also thematic.



I can also double-shift Hull to play with them, or Dumart. Davidson I picked mostly for his physicality.



I think you're underrating Sprague Cleghorn a little bit, but I'm not gonna go to war for it. The impressive thing about Cleghorn is that he was de facto a top offensive, defensive and physical D. I haven't had time to reconstruct @overpass' study on how Cleghorn impacted his teams defensively, but I remember it was heavily in his favor. As for offensively and physically, it's clear he was near the top of his era.

That said your overall assessment is reasonable. Just wanted to note something about Coulter: I got a PM from @overpass today leading me to this thread: All-star team selected by NHL coaches (1927 to 1941)

Seems coaches voted Coulter a 1st AST in 1935, 1939 and 1940, whereas the official ASTs had him on the 2nd team. Three times is a lot and beyond a coincidence. Coaches preferred Coulter than writers, and saw more in him. Where would Coulter rank if those were his official ASTs?

Also, not sure Coulter was a weak puck-carrier. Not saying he was Harry Cameron or Sprague Cleghorn, but he was an intelligent player. Also @ImporterExporter had found this:

"...both excel as puck-carriers." (speaking of Seibert and Coulter after their trade)



If that's an issue (which I don't think it is, considering Bobby Rowe, while lacking in size, was a great pugilist and tough customer), I have Bob Armstrong as a spare, which solves the problem completely without sacrificing too much, especially given my Top 4 eats up a lot of TOI.



Wow really?! That sounds insane, considering how dangerous Kane is with his wrist shot even from a long distance.



Cleghorn is an amazing 2nd unit pointman though. But yeah, the unit as a whole is just OK.



Not even Coulter? Has to be one of the top PK D ever.



Not every team needs to have a pure shut down line. Trotz can create one if need be though. Dumart-Schmidt-Kane can act as one, then I put Hull-Ullman-Wheeler, which is not great defensively but not catastrophic neither for an offensive line.

What my Top 9 isn't lacking is physicality, which is more the essence of my forward group and what Trotz likes. Every line is physical and competent defensively.

Anyway, thanks again for the review, I appreciate it. Your team will be next in line, not sure when, probably this week-end.

I would say that it would be interesting to compare Coulter's official all-star record with his coach's all-star record, with the NHL defensemen who finished near and above him on the HOH Top Defensemen project.

You're right - he is one of the top PK defensemen ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Great analysis. I will try to move some thing around, but ya it's screwed up lol.

I could move Johnson with Lidstrom and go with Vasko-Karlsson to spread out the offense and bring more balance.

I read a newspaper article about Kostka and how he was a creative offensive mind and not just a left wing lock fella, but he mostly was kicked upstairs and didn't coach all that much. When he did he had great results tho.

Ratelle was overused in the regular season by the Rangers, that's why he was worn out by playoffs. He proved it in Boston. Maybe if I swap Forsberg and Ratelle it gives that line a bit more oomph. I'll then give him Hodge to help on the wall.

Since Watson is wasted on the fourth line, I'll move him up with Thornton- two beasts.

I think Kostka could work wonders with Mahovlich. He's an intelligent guy and not a moron like Imlach, so Frank might be more inclined to put in some effort. Also, wouldn't he be well suited for the left wing lock since he is well-rounded having played in T.O.? Also, he apparently was very strong defensively in Montreal.

Carbonneau was pretty slick with the puck for a checking center and Finnigan has some very good assist results: Top-10 Playoff Assist (3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th).

Mahovlich - Forsberg - Makarov
Naslund - Ratelle - Hodge
Watson - Thornton - Gartner
Smith - Carbonneau - Finnigan

Lidstrom - Johnson
Vasko - Karlsson
Boivin - Konstantinov

And I'll do as you say on special teams as well.

I don't think "playing in Toronto" alone makes Mahovlich well-rounded; I think it's pretty obvious he was a poor fit for that team.

I'd be interested to hear from others, but at first glance, Forsberg might be a bit too puck dominant to be the ideal center for Makarov. But maybe it's more important to get a tough guy for Ratelle?

OK, with a playmaking resume like that, I supposed Finnigan can work well as the opposite wing from Watson. I think I like Watson better on the 4th line than Smith. Wasn't Smith an offense-only guy, or am I missing something?

I hate breaking up Lidstrom and Karlsson, but Vasko-Karlsson is just such a major improvement over your previous second pairing, maybe it's the right move.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

re: @Professor What 's team

Peter Bondra's PK stats are crazy. He only killed 14% of his team's penalties over the course of his career (for teams 10% better than average), but he racked up SHGs in the time he did play.

Did Washington just put him out there at the very end of the PK and have him play all-offense?

Did they only play him on the PK when they were down a goal and had him press?

I remember Bondra as a guy who scored an insane amount of unassisted goals off turnovers

 

[Professor What]

re: @Professor What 's team

Peter Bondra's PK stats are crazy. He only killed 14% of his team's penalties over the course of his career (for teams 10% better than average), but he racked up SHGs in the time he did play.

Did Washington just put him out there at the very end of the PK and have him play all-offense?

Did they only play him on the PK when they were down a goal and had him press?

I remember Bondra as a guy who scored an insane amount of unassisted goals off turnovers

Well, whatever it is, I kind of have to roll with things now, but I'm not exactly uncomfortable with him out there, especially when he's playing with three strong defenders. And really, I like the threat he poses.

 

[tony d]

You reviewed my roster, so I'll do the same for your team now, my comments are in bold:

Coach: Anatoli Tarasov

Tarasov is one of the top 10-15 coaches of all time so that puts him in the mid range of coaches this year, he's still a solid coach and won't be negative for your team.

Busher Jackson --- Cyclone Taylor --- Daniel Alfredsson
Tommy Smith --- Newsy Lalonde (A) --- Mickey MacKay
Gordon Roberts --- Pit Lepine --- Eddie Oatman
Dean Prentice --- David Backes --- Jack Walker

Forward Line 1: Jackson seems like the type of guy all teams would like to have, seems to be a bit rugged and a very good goal scorer. He should prove to be quite the player for your team. I've never had Cyclone Taylor before but he seems to have a number of favorable qualities that should provide benefeicial to your team. Alfredsson is one of my favorite players all time, the guy should be in the Hall of Fame. Overall a solid 1st line for your team here. Jackson and Taylor should play quite well together.

Forward Line 2: Smith looks like a guy that will be all over the ice for your team, solid goal scorer and all around player. Like Cyclone Taylor on your 1st Lalonde will provide a lot of offense for your team. I think Taylor Lalonde at center for your team will give your team a good 1-2 punch at centre. Mickey Mackay should provide some playmaking for your team. I see you have him at right wing, thought he was more of a center. Overall a 2nd line that will provide a lot of offense for your team.

Forward Line 3: Gordon Roberts looks like a Jackson lite player. He's a guy that I've looked at before and he should prove to be quite solid for your team. Pit Lepine seems to be a good 2-way player who should be prove to be able to concentrate on his defense moreso than his offense given you have Taylor and Lalonde on your team. Oatman looks like he'll provide some offense to your team, overall a good 3rd line.

Forward Line 4: Dean Prentice is the ultimate glue guy and should be a good 4th liner for your team. Backes will offer your team some good 2-way play on your 4th line as well. Jack Walker and Backes will prove to be a good duo on the 4th line. Add in Prentice and you have a solid 4th line trio.

Ebbie Goodfellow (A) --- Dit Clapper (C)
Ken Reardon --- Jack Crawford
Frank Patrick --- Lennart Svedberg

Defense Pairing 1: Ebbie Goodfellow should live up to his last name and be a solid #1 defenseman for your team. Dit Clapper's a versatile player and should be solid for your team, he's a good choice for captain. I think Goodfellow and Clapper will be a solid 1st pairing for your team.

Defense Pairing 2: I had Reardon last year, a player I had always wanted to draft and was glad to got the chance to do so. Always find it hard to see what kind of defenseman he was, I read some of his bio and he seems to be more offensive but you have him on your 1st pk pairing. So good defenseman but still hard to get a read on. Jack Crawford finishes the pairing and seems to be more defensive oriented. So this pairing is 1 2nd pairing that appears to be maybe more defensively oriented.

Defense Pairing 3: Frank Patrick seems to be a good offensive defenseman who should provide some secondary offense for your team. Svedberg reads to be the same. Seems like this pairing might be used more in games vs. other offensive teams or weaker defensive teams than your 2nd pairing.

Patrick Roy
Hugh Lehman

Roy's the best goalie ever so you're very good in net, Lehman's a good backup as well, so goalie will be a strength for your team.

Spares: Bruce MacGregor (RW/C), Glen Harmon (D), Patrick Sharp (F)

A solid trio of spares. Sharp is a guy I can see slotting into your lineup quite a bit due to his versatility. IIRC Reardon did have some injury issues in his career so Harmon might be called upon more than often than not.

PP1: Jackson - Lalonde - Smith - Taylor - Goodfellow
PP2: Clapper - MacKay - Roberts - Patrick - Alfredsson

PK1: Lepine - Walker - Reardon - Clapper
PK2: MacKay - Prentice - Goodfellow - Crawford

Solid special teams group. I think i'd have Svedberg on one of your PP units and Backes on one of your PK units but still a solid group.

Final Thoughts: Overall a good effort as always from you. Best of luck to you as we move into the voting process in the next few days.

 

[ImporterExporter]

MONTREAL CANADIENS​

​

GM: BenchBrawl​

Coach: Barry Trotz
Captain: Milt Schmidt
Assistant: Art Coulter
Assistant: Sprague Cleghorn
Assistant: Babe Siebert


HEAD COACH​

Barry Trotz​

ROSTER

Bobby Hull - Milt Schmidt (C) - Blake Wheeler
Woody Dumart - Norm Ullman - Patrick Kane*
Claude Giroux - Jeremy Roenick - Dave Taylor
Bob Davidson - Ken Mosdell - Jerry Toppazzini

Sprague Cleghorn (A) - Art Coulter (A)
Babe Siebert (A) - Harry Cameron
Bobby Rowe - Viktor Kuzkin

Georges Hainsworth
Miikka Kiprusoff

Spares: Vincent Lecavalier, Mark Stone, Bob Armstrong

*Patrick Kane currently a Top 2 Hart candidate for the 2020-2021 season near the half-way mark

PP

Giroux-Schmidt-Kane
Cameron-Hull

Ullman-Roenick-Wheeler
Siebert-Cleghorn

PK

Mosdell-Toppazzini
Siebert-Coulter

Dumart-Schmidt
Rowe-Cleghorn

PK extras: Hull, Davidson, Roenick

​

Forward
	ES	PP	PK	TOT
Hull	15	5	1	21
Schmidt	14	4	2	20
Ullman	15	3	0	18
Kane	14	4	0	18
Dumart	14	0	2	16
Wheeler	12	3	0	15
Roenick	12	3	0	15
Giroux	10	4	0	14
Taylor	12	0	0	12
Mosdell	9	0	4	13
Toppazzini	9	0	4	13
Davidson	9	0	1	10
	145	26	14	185
Defense
	ES	PP	PK	TOT
Cleghorn	20	2	3	25
Coulter	18	0	4	22
Siebert	17	2	4	23
Cameron	17	5	0	22
Rowe	10	0	2	12
Kuzkin	10	0	1	11
	92	9	14	115

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Hey bud, thanks once again for being a part of this thing and sticking it out even though I know this is the last go for you. It's been a pleasure over the years sir without a doubt!

Coaching:

Trotz has really helped his case over the last few years. Finally got that elusive Cup in Washington and has done a good job in NY since then, pushing an Islanders team above the talent it has on paper, largely through extremely boring but very effective trap/defensive hockey. I've changed my perception on him the last 2/3 years now.

Probably an average coach in a draft this size, he should really like the roster he has in front of him here. Many years with Ovechkin in real life, so Bobby Hull won't be an issue at all. One of the deepest groups of forwards in the ATD as well as blue lines.


Leadership:

Solid group. Not spectacular, not bad.


Forwards:

Strength of this team. Really like the entire group, for the most part.

Top line is 2/3 elite. Hull/Schmidt is a hellova combo. Shouldn't need to expand on that much, but I don't like Wheeler here and I think we talked on that before. Sure he's an 80 on the VsX scale, but only a 1 time AS (2nd team) and has no playoff record to note. I feel like Blake is one of these guys who basically gets drafted because his name stands out on that VsX list but he simply doesn't have the resume to be up here IMO and he's not exactly a physical presence, even for a big guy, not a defensive difference maker. Never got the hype on him over the years.

I'd absolutely get Kane on that top line and make it a near unstoppable trio. Kane has the play making chops for the line and with the size/physical ability of the other 2, he doesn't really have to play out of his element as he does in real life.

I think Wheeler is certainly a passable 2nd liner here and with Ullman and Dumart already on that unit, it would still be a strong depth scoring line, with defensive chops as well. Dave Taylor, with his ES scoring abilities and ferocious checking could also moonlight on the 2nd line as well but either way, I would definitely get Kane on the top line as you have the depth at F to not have to split a guy like Hull/Kane.

Just my .02 of course!

2nd line as it stands is obviously fantastic! Checks all the boxes and Kane is obviously an elite presence on a 2nd line and Ullman a very strong C. Dumart looks like a real solid 2LW.

Love that 3rd line. Don't need to get to in depth. You have a great playmaking winger in Giroux, big/physical goal scoring C and a strong 2 way, super physical player in Taylor on the RW. This group should definitely make some waves when they establish control in the offensive zone and can work the cycle.

Depth of F's shows very much in the bottom 6 and the 4th line is no different. Strong defensive unit all together, thoough Mosdell and Topp bring some solid counter abilities for this role. Davidson is crazy physical and will definitely feature well when opposing the big, physical RWs.

Really love what you did at F this year BB. Only gripe is Wheeler but beyond that it's one of the best groups top to bottom I've reviewed!


Power Play

Along with a few other groups, this is a lethal top unit. Hull, Cameron is ridiculous up top. You're going to have to get a bit more aggressive on Hull as you can't let him sit up there slapping bombs with regularity. Kane, Giroux and Schmidt are a fantastic trio at F w/all the offensive traits you want up with the man advantage. Plus you have another pair of blue liners (Seibert and Cleghorn) capable of playing on the top unit, which would allow Hull to move down into an Ovechkin like spot, just to give teams a different look.

Really good depth group, especially the point men in Babe/Sprague.


Defensemen:

Another great unit top to bottom.

Cleghorn is a solid #1 this year. Obviously we know he can be a bit of a lunatic but he's really strong in both directions, can skate, hit, fight, help on both special teams units. Coulter is a nice partner in that he is more of a defensive player but was a strong skater and capable of moving the puck himself so you have that ability on both sides. Really, really physical pair so it'll be a rough ride throughout a series. Coulter features as a low end 2/premium 3 in a draft this size. Like this pair a lot. They can do damage going both ways.

Can't argue the 2nd pairing either. Both strong #3's, you've got plenty of puck moving ability, solid D, though not as air tight as the top pair IMO.

Rock solid bottom pair.

The blue line isn't going to blow you away per say, but you have a sold #1, a borderline 2, and a pair of 3's on the 2nd pair. That'll give you advantage in some match ups for sure. And I like the overall mix of players. Really physical group.


Penalty Kill:

Rock solid group overall. Love the F's all around, they'll almost surely get you a goal or 2 shorthanded over a deep playoff run.

Great defenders as well.


Goalies:

Given how much I like the F's/D this was bound to happen. Hainwsworth is obviously a weak goalie here. Possibly the worst (have to look at everyone together) starter. With that being said, he does have an above average D corps in front of him. Plus the premium nature and depth of F's + puck moving blue liners should allow for generally good/great scoring outputs.

In some games it'll basically come down to how well Hainsworth handles more volume.

Kippy is a solid backup.


Overall:

One of the better F/D combo's you'll find in the league. Very strong scoring potential. Solid blue line.

Basically come down to how well the D/Hainsworth holds up and whether Trotz can match wits.

Per the norm BB, a great entry sir! Good luck!

 

[tinyzombies]

I don't think "playing in Toronto" alone makes Mahovlich well-rounded; I think it's pretty obvious he was a poor fit for that team.

I'd be interested to hear from others, but at first glance, Forsberg might be a bit too puck dominant to be the ideal center for Makarov. But maybe it's more important to get a tough guy for Ratelle?

OK, with a playmaking resume like that, I supposed Finnigan can work well as the opposite wing from Watson. I think I like Watson better on the 4th line than Smith. Wasn't Smith an offense-only guy, or am I missing something?

I hate breaking up Lidstrom and Karlsson, but Vasko-Karlsson is just such a major improvement over your previous second pairing, maybe it's the right move.

What about Thornton as first line center? You don't think Forsberg and Makarov could play catch with Lidstrom?

Mahovlich-Thornton-Makarov
Naslund-Forsberg-Hodge
Smith-Ratelle-Gartner
Watson-Carbo-Finnigan

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Coach: Mike Babcock
(C) Trottier (A)Armstrong
(A) Sittler (A) MacInnis

Delvecchio -Trottier-Kurri
Shutt - Sittler- Armstrong
Propp-Draisaitl -Vaive
Klukay-Kasper- Nevin
Sloan- Risebrough

Suter- MacInnis
Tremblay-Howell
Thomson -Mortson
Stanowski


Smith
Quick

Specialty Teams

PP Unit 1
Delvecchio -Trottier-Kurri
Suter MacInnis


PP Unit 2
Draisaitl -Sittler-Vaive
Tremblay-Howell

PK Unit 1
Propp -Kasper
Thomson -Mortson

PK Unit 2
Klukay -Armstrong
Suter MacInnis

Maple Leafs review

Coaching and leadership: Babcock is an ok coach here I guess. Probably lower half. For the most part, your team seems like a Babcock team, with the very notable exception of the Draisatl-Vaive third line.

First line - Really good two-way line. This is the kind of line you can use head-to head against anyone. If there's any criticism, it's that Trottier is the most physical player on the line, which is not how Trots had most of his success in real life, but I could see these three doing some "puck winning by committee."

Second line - Seem a bit subpar. All the pieces are there for an effective line, but from a talent perspective, Shutt and Armstrong each seem like he's better served as the 3rd wheel on a scoring line. Sittler is fine.

Third line - Propp works, but I have no idea what to think of Draisatl at this point, and Vaive should probably be a scoring line player in the MLD. I realize you don't really need your third line to be a checking line, given who you have on your first line, but I still don't see Babcock using two defensive liabilities in Draisaitl and Vaive together in the bottom 6.

Fourth line - Really good defensive line, though with Klukay and Kasper, they are kind of a black hole offensively.

First pairing - Honest, were these guys ever actual partners at even strength, or were they just partners on the PP? Gary Suter is your 6th best defenseman, and I'm not even sure if he gets much of an even strength boost playing with MacInnis.

Second pairing - I see Tremblay as a low-end #2 and Howell as a low-end #3. And their skillsets mesh really well.

Third pairing - Obviously the best third pairing in the draft. IMO, Thomson is a low-end #3 along the same level as Howell, Flaman, or White. Mortson isn't as good, but he's still a solid #5... which might be what he is on your team, since I'm not actually sure he's worse than Suter.

One small thing - your LD/RD pairings are a bit messed up. MacInnis, Thomson, and Tremblay were RDs. Though Tremblay was a LH -shot, so maybe he could play LD. Mortson and Howell was LDs. I'm not 100% sure about Suter.

Defensive options - Obviously it's your team, so you can do what you want, but I'd consider something like this at even strength:
Howell - MacInnis
Suter - Tremblay
Mortson - Thomson

Suter on a 2nd pairing isn't ideal, but I don't know if Mortson would be so much of an improvement to break up him and Thomson

Man, if you had just drafted someone like Lionel Conacher when you drafted Gary Suter, you'd have an amazing defensive unit. As it is, it's not terrible, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't think Gary Suter was that great a defenseman, other than on the PP.

Goaltending - Billy Smith is the man in the playoffs, but a pure tandem goalie in the regular season. Is Jonathan Quick the kind of backup you want to see a greater than usual share of regular season games in the ATD?

Power play - 1st unit is solid, though they lack the real big gunner up front. Tremblay is good on the 2nd unit, Howell and Vaive look weak.

Penalty kill - IMO, Klukay is your penalty killer and should be on the first unit. Kasper, despite his Selke, actually doesn't have THAT great a PK resume, but I suppose he's adequate. IMO, both Delvecchio and Kurri deserve a PK spot more than Armstrong. On D, I honestly think your best two PKers are currently benchwed. Howell was a really good defensive defenseman. And I actually found it surprising that, since 1960, JC Tremblay actually has the greatest PK usage all-time after Jacques Laperriere. That's a little tempered by the fact that it seems like 1st unit PK defensemen in general saw more time from 1960-1967 than they did after expansion, and also that Toe Blake was obviously riding his top 2 PK defensemen hard, but still, JC Tremblay's penalty killing has likely been underrated around here. Despite having a rep as a soft guy, he had to be doing something right.

Overall - Your first line is strong, and combined with your 4th line gives you those two separate lines that can be trusted defensively - something that IMO, every good team needs. I'm not as big a fan of your second line - it works, but the wingers really could use more oomph. The third line confuses me, and I really don't like Vaive in the main draft. With a very notable exception of Gary Suter on the 2nd line, your defense is pretty good at the top, and excellent at the bottom.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What about Thornton as first line center? You don't think Forsberg and Makarov could play catch with Lidstrom?

Mahovlich-Thornton-Makarov
Naslund-Forsberg-Hodge
Smith-Ratelle-Gartner
Watson-Carbo-Finnigan

Interesting idea. I honestly didn't think of it myself. Thornton does add more size to the line to help out the Big M. I think he's probably your best option there - he's also at least as good a player as Ratelle anyway.

Your second line's wingers are fairly weak on a "ranking" list, but from a skillset standpoint, that line works. And Forsberg is obviously an outstanding 2C, who brings up the guys around him.

I guess then my issue would be a soft 3rd line. At some point, maybe you just need to bench Smith for some more size? Another idea - Was Frank Finnigan a tough guy? I'm kind of embarrassed to forget the details on him, even though I've drafted him in the past. If Finnigan is a tough guy, maybe he could work next to Smith and Ratelle?

 

[tinyzombies]

Interesting idea. I honestly didn't think of it myself. Thornton does add more size to the line to help out the Big M. I think he's probably your best option there - he's also at least as good a player as Ratelle anyway.

Your second line's wingers are fairly weak on a "ranking" list, but from a skillset standpoint, that line works. And Forsberg is obviously an outstanding 2C, who brings up the guys around him.

I guess then my issue would be a soft 3rd line. At some point, maybe you just need to bench Smith for some more size? Another idea - Was Frank Finnigan a tough guy? I'm kind of embarrassed to forget the details on him, even though I've drafted him in the past. If Finnigan is a tough guy, maybe he could work next to Smith and Ratelle?

I can move Watson up and then find a 4L if I can still drop/pick up.

Mahovlich-Thornton-Makarov
Watson-Forsberg-Gartner
Naslund-Ratelle-Hodge
Smith/Draper-Carbo-Finnigan

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I can move Watson up and then find a 4L if I can still drop/pick up.

Mahovlich-Thornton-Makarov
Watson-Forsberg-Gartner
Naslund-Ratelle-Hodge
Smith/Draper-Carbo-Finnigan

I like Naslund/Hodge more with Forsberg. Naslund has his issues, but he was a good scorer, and I do like the chemistry with Forsberg.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lester Patrick

Tommy Phillips - Wayne Gretzky "C" - Charlie Conacher "A"
Brad Marchand - Marty Barry - Bobby Bauer
Artemi Panarin - Cooney Weiland - Claude Provost
Brian Sutter - Camille Henry - Floyd Curry

Scott Niedermayer "A" - Drew Doughty
Pat Stapleton - Bill White
Ryan McDonagh - P.K. Subban

Jacques Plante
Henrik Lundqvist

Spares: Lynn Patrick, Jack Marshall, Carol Vadnais

PP1: Conacher-Gretzky-Henry-Subban-Stapleton
PP2: Marchand-Barry-Bauer-Doughty-Niedermayer

PK1: Phillips-Curry-McDonagh-White
PK2: Weiland-Provost-Niedermayer-Doughty
PK3: Marchand-Gretzky

​

Forwards	ES	PP	PK	Total
Wayne Gretzky	16	5	1	22
Tommy Phillips	14		3	17
Charlie Conacher	15	5		20
Marty Barry	14	2		16
Brad Marchand	13	2	1	16
Bobby Bauer	13	2		15
Cooney Weiland	12		3	15
Artemi Panarin	11			11
Claude Provost	12		3	15
Camille Henry	4	5		9
Brian Sutter	8			8
Floyd Curry	6		3	9
Totals	138	21	14	173

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Defensemen	ES	PP	PK	Total
Scott Niedermayer	19	2	3	24
Drew Doughty	19	2	3	24
Pat Stapleton	17	5		22
Bill White	17		4	21
Ryan McDonagh	10		4	14
P.K. Subban	10	5		15
Totals	92	14	14	120

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

[/quote]

​

Interesting team. It has a lot of different units, so lacks a clear identity, but Lester Patrick is an ideal coach for this kind of lineup, as he can handle the different styles and maximize their utility and potential.

Gretzky-Conacher has been done many times before, both because they're a natural fit and because their placement in the snake draft fall in the range of the 2nd overall team. What they lack is defense and Tommy Phillips was probably the best choice around where he got picked. Gretzky and Conacher is no doubt the most dangerous forward duo in the draft.

Marchand-Barry-Bauer brings two playmaking wingers to complement Barry's goalscoring, and the line is not unlike a Kraut-lite unit. Not sure about Barry's defensive acumen, else Marchand will have to shoulder the heavy lifting all by himself, and leave the Top 6 with its defense all on the left side. But on memory Barry brought a reasonable all-around game? Bauer is underrated by VsX and I have no problem with him as a Top 6er.

I think I was the one to introduce Panarin to his "ATD career" last year, and he has five excellent seasons under his belt (not bad this year, but NYR is struggling). It was also my understanding that despite being a soft finesse player, he was at least responsible defensively, which I guess is counterintuitive to the image we have of players like him. This is an excellent unit defensively that can bring some offensive support; however unless I'm misreading Weiland the line appears to be very soft. That's the weakness I can see on this line, especially if they faced a power offensive line.

The 4th line wingers are alright, though Henry is a PP specialist, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

The blueline is lacking a true #1D, but the top pairing is very good at even-strenght, and can both defend and move the puck. Both are also major winners, with multiple Smythe-level runs between the two of them.

Excellent 2nd pairing reuniting Stapleton and White. Though again it lacks a really solid #3D, the synergy compensates for that, but I'd have loved a more high-end #3 after lacking a true #1. That said, the Top 4 as a whole is as good as any "defense by committee" as you can get without having elite players.

Not a fan of PK Subban. I see him more fit as an MLD #1D, where his warts are compensated by his talent. Here he's a bottom-pairing defenseman with a questionable character, which I don't like in role players. But I know that he was drafted to fill that PP1 triggerman spot, which is the price you had to pay for getting ES specialists on your top pairing.

Jacques Plante is arguably the greatest goaltender of all-time. In my book he's 2nd behind Patrick Roy, and he doesn't come with Roy's volatile personality. Feels more "steady" than Roy even. In that sense, I feel like Lundqvist was overkill, but Lundqvist is an elite backup, and more suited for that role, never having won the Stanley Cup (something I would avoid at all costs with my starter, obviously except for europeans). Having Plante there stabilizes an already stable Top 4 on defense, so while lacking in top-heavy blueliners, I see the entire defensive unit including Plante as reliable and steady. That said, Plante did play behind Doug Harvey in his prime, as well as Tom Johnson, so he was used to have top defenders in front of him. But that's not a real problem as I see it, just something to note.

The 1st PP unit is solid, but you had to pay some price to get Henry and Subban there. The pointmen are not that good, but the forwards are so good that it salvage the unit.

The 2nd PP unit is good, no huge strenght but all honest players and natural units from your ES lineup.

How good has McDonagh's PK resume become? I'm off the beat with this. Both PK units seem solid, just not sure how much.

Overall a team build around three major strenghts: Jacques Plante, Gretzky-Conacher and Lester Patrick, the latter giving the best chance to capitalize on (as opposed to get burned by) the diversity of styles throughout the forward units.

Orillia mini-review

Im just going to piggyback off BB's review of Orillia, since I agree with most of it. I'll just add a few things in bullet points:

• Phillips' offense isn't good, but this is a rare team situation where I think he's viable as a 1st liner - he's a good defensive conscience who isn't totally pathetic as a scorer. But make no mistake, his offense wouldn't be good enough on most first lines. Kind of like when I drafted Harris to add what my 2nd line desperately needed - you took the hit in scoring to fill a hole.
• I'd like the 3rd line so much more if the LW was a tough guy with a decent defensive presence. Weiland-Provost just seems like the basis of what could have been one of the top two-way lines of the draft. I'd buy Panarin as a good 3rd liner if the you had a 1st or 2nd line that you wanted to use in more defensive roles, but as this team is constructed, this is the primary defensive line
• Normally, I'd rather see Henry at LW at even strength, where he'd do less damage, but then I realize it makes sense to double shift Gretzky
• I think Subban is a fine bottom pairing dman here.
• Agree with BB on the PP - awesome forwards, not as good pointmen, though Stapleton is ok.
• Who takes the faceoff on PK1?

 

[tinyzombies]

I link Naslund/Hodge more with Forsberg. Naslund has his issues, but he was a good scorer, and I do like the chemistry with Forsberg.

COACH -Vladimir Kostka
CAPTAIN - Nicklas Lidstrom
ASSISTANT CAPTAINS - Leo Boivin, Guy Carbonneau

Mahovlich - Thornton - Makarov
Naslund - Forsberg - Hodge
Harry Watson - Ratelle - Gartner
Sid Smith/Draper - Carbonneau - Finnigan
McGee

Lidstrom - Johnson
Vasko - Karlsson
Boivin - Konstantinov
Carlyle

Grant Fuhr
Chuck Rayner​

PP1:
Hodge (46%/1.42)
Gartner (52%/1.00) - Makarov (47%/1.11-NHL) - Forsberg (72%/1.14)
Lidstrom (73%/1.23)

PP2:
Thornton (67%/1.08)
Naslund - Mahovlich (67%/1.04)- Ratelle (53%/1.18)
Karlsson (75%/.94)

PK1: Carbonneau (53%/.91)-Finnigan (Best penalty killer 1930's - Ultimate Hockey) -Lidstrom (52%/.81)-Johnson (77%/.91)

PK2: Draper (33%/.82)-Mahovlich (13%/.83)/Forsberg (21%/.88)-Vasko (53%/1.00)-
Konstantinov (42%/.76)​