85 replies to this topic

[preisst]

QUOTE (Armster @ May 19 2009, 09:01 PM)

---

If you could build one team for one series would it be the 78 Soviet Union team or would it be the top NHL players of all time?

Not even close, the NHLers in a 4 game sweep, no problem.

[preisst]

QUOTE (dreakmur @ May 21 2009, 10:53 AM)

---

I'm pretty sure Lepine went. Same team that had Joel Otto if I remember...

I'm weirded out right now, I, too, thought Lepine was taken. I had it in my mind that I was about to take him when someone else scooped me. But I just did a very cursory scan on the rosters and I don't see where he was taken, he definitely wasn't on the same team as Otto. ??????? I think 70's is right. He was on my radar but I guess I changed my mind.

[preisst]

QUOTE (dreakmur @ May 21 2009, 11:15 AM)

---

Detox has Joel Otto and Albert Lepine.... which I assume is Alfred "Pit" Lepine.

You're right, I just double checked, guess I was still drunk this morning when I looked which is extremely odd considering I haven't had a drink since Tuesday night!!

[preisst]

QUOTE (Zaditton @ May 21 2009, 10:25 PM)

---

Wal-Mart

/rimshot

Anyway, I have decided that Mike Bossy should be on this team. Best goalscorer of all-time would be a good compliment to Gretzky, but they'd need a big forward to go with them or they'll get tossed around

Bossy has got to be the best sniper I have personally seen play, man that dude could score goals. They'd need a guy like, or similar to, Clark Gillies. Maybe a Ted Lindsay would work great with a Gretzky and Bossy.

[TuckerIntensity1]

Hull - Gretzky - Howe is disgusting... ridiculously disgusting. Opposing goalies would need a diaper or six.

If we're building a team, team...

Hull - Gretz - Howe
Kharlamov - Lemieux - Richard
Gainey - Clarke - Kurri
Lindsay - Mikita - Conacher

Orr - Shore
Bourque - Harvey
Lidstrom - Potvin

Roy
Hasek

Thought about Cyclone Taylor and Messier centering the fourth and Cook on the right side. Also, thought about Plante in net.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 19 2009, 05:46 PM)

---

- Dude, research Nighbor some more. Best defensive forward of his time, bar none. With Gainey there is some real doubt as to that "fact". Factor in that Nighbor provides Clarke-level offense and you have an easy choice.

- Cook is definitely better than Conacher. Conacher has the goal-scoring edge but it's actually closer than you may think. Cook has the leadership edge, plus better playmaking and defensive play. I'd wager he's a better skater too. I think he's a much more suitable 4th-liner.

I thought the same as dreak about Nighbor. If he can play the left side, then I would concur, he's a better player for that position. I just thought he was a centre and didn't want to have a centre playing the wing if he never had, my bad. As for Cook, how definitive is it? I mean, they are pretty close no (I think separated by only two spots on the HF list)? Conacher had better playoff numbers and a smaller drop off, but it was Conacher's size that put him ahead for my fourth line not his goal scoring alone.

[TuckerIntensity1]

QUOTE (spinner @ May 20 2009, 03:46 PM)

---

This sounds exactly like the argument I tried to use for Rolston and Mogilny in the ATD, which you (and others) wouldn't buy. Why does it work now?

I didn't hate Rolston on your fourth line at all.

[Zaditton]

QUOTE (Coach Gipper @ May 21 2009, 11:08 PM)

---

Dare I even ask where Manny Legace would go?

Wal-Mart

/rimshot

Anyway, I have decided that Mike Bossy should be on this team. Best goalscorer of all-time would be a good compliment to Gretzky, but they'd need a big forward to go with them or they'll get tossed around

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 19 2009, 02:34 PM)

---

Howe being on the 4th line is just blasphemy. He's too good to not be on the first. I get that Lafleur is more of a "top-6 or not at all" guy and Howe on the 4th is a way to get both, but still.

Couldn't agree more.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (Lafleurs Fries @ May 19 2009, 04:14 PM)

---

I like Richard better with Gretz and Howe with Lemieux. Lemieux is more of a scorer, so is Richard. Gretz and Howe are good passers, I think it just works better that way.

I agree with this. A Gretzky-Richard pair (just like that commercial, lol) would be absolutely insane. Lemieux-Howe would be equally insane! Scary to think about it. There wouldn't be enough puck to go around for Bobby Hull and whoever else is playing LW.

QUOTE (Lafleurs Fries @ May 19 2009, 04:14 PM)

---

I like Trotts better than Kurri, he's got some more toughness and I think he's better defensively. Ditto with Gainey.

I agree with this too. Even though he is solid defensively, Kurri on the 3rd line looks out of place. His main role was to provide offense.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 19 2009, 07:58 PM)

---

You guys are underrating Kurri's defensive ability. Besides being Wayne's triggerman, he was also that line's defensive conscience. That has been his reputation for years. He was top-5 in Selke voting four times too (2, 3, 4, 5) - FWIW, Trottier was 2nd one year and the next best he placed was 8th. He was better offensively than Kurri, and generally the more offense you provide the more likely you are to get Selke votes.

I'm not underestimating Kurri's defensive ability at all but it's like putting Gordie Howe on the 4th line for his toughness. Kurri is a top 6 forward, not a checking line winger. He may have Top 5 finishes for the Selke but there are Selke winners who deserve a spot on that third line ahead of him. Claude Provost comes to mind.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 20 2009, 02:39 PM)

---

Provost was my original choice, actually. But the offensive gap is so huge that I'd go with Kurri. Kurri never got to show what he could do on a checking line because he was too skilled. That's not his fault. He was smart enough to do the job of a shutdown player.

This sounds exactly like the argument I tried to use for Rolston and Mogilny in the ATD, which you (and others) wouldn't buy. Why does it work now?

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 20 2009, 03:02 PM)

---

....because Mogilny was a purely one-dimensional player who, for a brief time in his career, fell into line in New Jersey, bought into their system and won a cup. He was also highly enigmatic, possibly the biggest enigma of his generation aside from Kovalev. He's not a 3rd/4th line type at all. He doesn't have the skill set. Kurri does.

And Rolston?

QUOTE (TuckerIntensity @ May 20 2009, 07:32 PM)

---

I didn't hate Rolston on your fourth line at all.

Thanks. One of the few who probably didn't, lol.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 10:26 AM)

---

Rolston has a 3rd/4th line skillset, he's just not good enough at it to really be there in an all-time context. Kind of like how Maxim Afinogenov has the skillset needed to be a 2nd line scoring winger but just isn't good enough at it to displace players like Mike Gartner or Cam Neely.

I was happy to get Rolston on my 3rd line in MLD10, after a 28-team main draft. Cumulative pick #839. That's about where he fits.

It's the kind of pick one would make when they haven't yet learned enough about older players enough. The same thing could be said for Stan Smyl. Pit Lepine, for example, was never taken in our draft. Or Alf Smith. Or Jerry Toppazzini. Or Tommy Dunderdale.

Rolston was an easy pick, that's all. I highly doubt you'd take him again in a 16-team draft.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 11:19 AM)

---

If Lepine was taken, I totally forgot that.

Point still stands, though. There are so many good players who made the top-10 or higher, who play a 3rd/4th line game, that you don't need to resort to taking Rolstons for those roles. Not in a 16-team draft.

"Resort" to take Rolston? I thought Rolston was a very clever pick, still do. He provided so much in the way of special teams, offense and defense, and I believe you are underrating him severely.

I have other take back picks, but Rolston isn't one of them.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 12:39 PM)

---

I'm very surprised to see you say that. Rolston is not a "special" player that history will remember. There were other players who provided just what he did, only they were even more significant players of their generation. I was delighted to get him in the 800s as a 3rd line MLD winger (that line was called the best shutdown line of the MLD) but I wouldn't take him higher than about 750.

Like I said, Rolston provides a lot of special talents because he is so versatile. He can kill penalties, he can play the point on the power play, he has a better shot than most guys, he can play all 3 forward positions, he's played at the highest levels internationally, etc. IMO, he's better than anyone you had on your 4th line.

QUOTE (detox @ May 21 2009, 01:06 PM)

---

I liked Rosltson on your 4th line as well, he's been one of my favourite players for a while now

Thanks, man.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 07:20 PM)

---

Better than Prentice? ROFL. the guy was In the top-20 in goals eight times and made the 2nd All-Star team. He did all the little things Rolston did and was more physical.

Better than Holik? They are equal offensively but Holik crushes him physically. Rolston is a good defensive player. Holik is a SHUTDOWN defensive player. big difference. Holik was a major part of two cup winners; Rolston a role player on one. No contest.

Better than Hall? talk to me when Rolston leads a league in scoring, is one of the three best players on a cup winner twice, is consistently among the highest scoring players at his position, becomes legendary for his toughness, and makes the hall of fame.

Better than Mohns? Mohns was an excellent defenseman and forward who played 23 years. he was in the top-10 in goals, assists, and points, and top-20 a few more times. he led all defensemen in scoring a few times and played in seven all-star games. He was, at least in the few cases I have available, just out of the top-5 in Norris voting frequently. He could skate like the wind and was tough. What more would you want in a player?

Better than Smyl? Smyl was the Canucks' poor man's Danny Gare/Wendel Clark for over a decade and was his franchise's Mr. Everything. History will not remember Rolston the way it remembers Smyl. Never.

Does Prentice have a shot like Rolston's? Can Prentice skate like Rolston? Does Prentice have the international resume that Rolston does? Does Prentice play the point on the power play and all 3 forward positions equally well? How many Selke votes does Prentice have compared to Rolston? I had enough physicality on my team, that wasn't Rolston's job.

Bobby Holik is one of the most overrated players. You're putting him up on a pedestal for the two Cups while in another thread, claim that Cups shouldn't be what "intelligent, free-thinking people" use to evaluate players. Which is it?

I'll give you Hall but Hall was one of your subs so that's kind of cheating.

Mohns was an excellent defenseman? OK. He was a better defenseman than Rolston. Too bad we were talking about the 4th line. And if I remember correctly, he was another one of your subs.

Smyl is another overrated player. You even admitted awhile back that Smyl was a poor choice for your team. Yes, he was a great Canucklehead but we are not making an all time list for Vancouver. He was nowhere near as versatile, or as skilled as Rolston.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:13 PM)

---

- Considering the offensive numbers Prentice put up with very little PP time, I am sure he had a shot similar to Rolston. He was a good skater but I doubt he could skate like Rolston. But who could? Besides, who cares about the attributes? it's the results that count. Prentice's results are far more significant than Rolston's. International? How could Prentice get into an international game? How could Prentice receive Selke votes? Saying Rolston has special teams usefulness is severely reaching. Just because he can do it in a 30-team NHL doesn't mean he can do it in a 16-team ATD. If he's on the point on your PP, you're in serious trouble. And if he's one of your four best defensive forwards you aren't in the top half in that department.

Well, I wasn't in serious trouble, was I? I think I did pretty well. My team also did pretty well in the defensive forwards department, even without Ramsay.

And I highly doubt Prentice had a shot like Rolston's. Just because he put up some offensive numbers does not mean he had a rocket shot.

And it's the results that count? Am I hearing that correctly? For Hainsworth vs. Worters, the results don't matter, Worters had the better attributes according to you. For Thornton vs. Dingman, the attributes matter. For Rolston vs. Prentice, now all of a sudden it's the results that matter, screw the better attributes.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:13 PM)

---

- Holik is overrated. I took him too early. Wish I could take that one back. Better than Rolston? Obviously. It's not that he won cups, its the important role he played in both of them. He's just as good offensively and far superior physically and defensively. He completely neutered guys like Sundin in the playoffs and is renowned as a playoff warrior.

Yes, because Sundin is such a solid playoff performer and Cup winner that anyone who could shut him down must be a defensive beast.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:13 PM)

---

- Why wouldn't Mohns be an excellent defenseman? He made the ASG five times as a defenseman and received Norris votes spanning over a decade. He was tough, adn this is one guy who CAN skate and shoot like Rolston.

Hey, I agreed that he was an excellent defenseman but we weren't talking about defensemen. That's like me saying Wayne Gretzky was a great center and you responding with nah, Bobby Orr was a better defenseman.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:13 PM)

---

- Smyl is also overrated and I wish I could redo that pick. I can think of 15 Cs and RWs I would rather take over those two now. But Rolston isn't close to being among them.

And Smyl, Holik, and Prentice would never be on my list. Big whoop.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:13 PM)

---

If you want, I'll show you 50 players who would have made better picks for that role than Rolston. Of course not all of them will be guys who can play three positions and not all of them will be able to play the point on the PP. But they'd all be better players, far more significant to the history of hockey.

Did you miss the part where I said I took Rolson for his versatility? He had solid attributes + versatility. That made him an ideal 4th line player for my team.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:33 PM)

---

Did you have him on the PP? I forget. If you did, it was either a bad move, or a move that highlighted a serious lack of offensive punch on your team.

As a matter of fact, I did. Second unit point duty. If it was a bad move, it was just another bad move in a long string of bad moves that got me first place and a goal away from winning the whole damn thing.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:33 PM)

---

He had something that got him all those goals, is my point.

But it wasn't his shot, is my point, so don't say it was.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:33 PM)

---

Cups and results aren't the same thing.

Leading the league in assists, that's results.

Being top-10 in goals, that's results.

Getting lots of Hart votes, that's results.

I never said Thornton was better than Dingman because of attributes! If so I'd have said "Thornton is a better skater, passer, and shooter".

Attributes are nothing if you don't get the results. Maxin Afinogenov has tons of attributes.

Those are all regular season results. You need to stop obsessing over regular season.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:33 PM)

---

Sundin was just one example. He's a big, talented, tough-to-contain center, and Holik manhandled him.

So did every other 3rd liner in most series he played.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:33 PM)

---

OK, fair enough. As a forward, Mohns also made the all-star game and was top-10 in goals, assists, and points.

Bully for Mohns. At least Rolston has real hair and not a toupeé.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:33 PM)

---

that's your loss.

Hardly, I'll take the 47 other guys you could show me with "better results", LOL.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 09:33 PM)

---

I could show you 50 guys with better results, similar type of 3rd/4th line skillset, and the same versatility. Selling him as a PP guy is silly. You wouldn't want him there in an ATD anyway.

Well, I did want him and I had him there. It didn't hurt me.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 10:02 PM)

---

Goals are far, far more important than how you get them.

Not if you want chemistry and are building a team. You can't just have goal scorers. You want people that contribute in other ways. I needed a good shot from the point on my second unit. Rolston gave me that.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 10:02 PM)

---

Not true. Sundin usually had close to a point per game in the playoffs.

And where did it get him? Timing is more important than total points. He obviously didn't produce when it mattered, otherwise his playoff resume would look a lot different.

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 10:02 PM)

---

nothing wrong with that, they'd all be better than Rolston, and most would be better than Smyl/Holik too.

Such as:

Alf Smith
Billy Gilmour
Harry Watson
Herbie Lewis
Bill Ezinicki
Baldy Northcott
Frank Finnigan
Fleming MacKell
Ken Mosdell
Floyd Curry
Tommy Dunderdale
Harry Hyland
Odie Cleghorn
Metro Prystai
Don McKenney
Johnny Wilson
Jack Marshall
Vic Stasiuk
Jerry Toppazzini
Ryan Walter
Blair Russell
Dave Balon
Eddie Oatman
Pie McKenzie
Harry Westwick
Rusty Crawford
Mickey MacKay
Jack Adams
Russell Bowie
Louis Berlinquette
Jack laviolette
Peter McNab
Jimmy Gardner
Ray Getliffe
Pud Glass
Cecil Blachford

and so on.

I beg to differ. I actually looked at some of those guys, namely Walter, McNab, Berlinquette, and Smith, from what I recall, and none of them impressed me as much as Rolston. I highly doubt any of those other guys could have brought to my team what Rolston brought.

[spinner12]

QUOTE (seventieslord @ May 21 2009, 10:23 PM)

---

Smith was the toughest player of his time, an excellent leader, a two-way player, very good scorer, and played both wings. berliquette had retro Selkes as well as some decent offensive credentials. Walter was an actual shutdown-caliber forward as opposed to just a guy who backchecked well. mcNab played all three positions, just as solid of a two-way game, and had much better offensive credentials.

I suppose debating the merits of every single player is not really somethign we want to get into. I just can't believe it was THAT important to get a guy who could play the point for you. You should have four defensemen who can do that already. And from what I saw, you did - Clancy, Cameron, Stevens, and Savard. There was no need for anything Rolston brought to the table.

It was more than just the shot from the point, it was the whole package. It's not that I didn't like Smith or Berlinquette, I just thought I needed something different. I had enough toughness and enough Selkes. If Cameron was a liability, as you say he was, coach Blake could bench him in favour of Rolston on the PP and that would send a message. Once again, it's all about chemistry and how each guy fits into my team.