Here's to a good series,
@seventieslord !
I'll get us started with a couple thoughts, in case neither of us find the time to get a more in-depth debate going later-
The top lines look pretty even to me. I think Regina has the top player in Lalonde, but I'd argue that Montreal has the next three in Conacher, Howe, and MacKay. Does Montreal's depth here make up for Lalonde being the best of the 6 players? I'd argue yes, but it's close.
The second lines for each team are similarly pretty close. Nels Stewart is always tricky to build around, but I think you've done an excellent job. Walker might just be the best player in this draft to put on his wing. However, in order to compensate for Stewart, you've sacrificed some offense from your wings; Walker and Bailey are both almost certainly worse offensively than Lewis and Drillon, right? Meanwhile, Each of Montreal's players are able to contribute offensively, and only Drillon is someone I wouldn't trust defensively (actually, re-looking at his ATD bio I see him compared to Stewart, which is a funny turn of events).
The third lines I feel less comfortable comparing; Walsh peaked higher than Dunderdale, but Dunderdale was more effective for longer. Anderson I'll admit to knowing very little of- I know he won the Hart in 1942, but didn't he play defense that year? I don't see any particularly noticeable awards or points finishes from him as a forward, outside of a 6th place points finish in 1938-39. Atty Howard is also largely outside of my comfort zone- where do we place him among his teammates on those Winnipeg teams, and then what does that mean for his place in hockey counting all the players in other leagues?
I feel much more comfortable talking about Harry Smith and Archie Hodgson. Smith is difficult to place because he bounced around so much- what is it, 14 teams over 9 leagues during the course of his career? I think he was very clearly one of the best goal scorers of his time, but he didn't bring a whole bunch outside of that. He could lash out with some stick work, but that could be considered a negative as well. Hodgson is someone I've talked about a bit since the project kicked off. I think he was actually the best forward on the Montreal AAA teams. His offensive contributions are undervalued due to him being primarily a puck carrier and distributor as opposed to a goal scorer, and the amount of praise he received for defensive play is probably the most I saw for any player of his era. In short, I think Hodgson and Smith make a nice pair.
Fourth lines- Adams vs Stuart would be fun to watch, two power forwards going at it. Despite what the project voted, I think Stuart was probably the better player. I was very impressed by how he was valued by the Wanderers in the tough games over Ernie Russell, despite Russell being one of the top scorers of the league. He is another player I think has been historically undervalued; for starters, he spent some time in the WPHL and IPHL, which I think are currently undervalued (I am working my way through them now, in the same manner I went through the AHAC/CAHL/FAHL/ECAHA), and then secondly, I think there is evidence that he was a strong set-up man, which until recently, we haven't had great visibility on. I'll point to him leading the 1909 ECHA season in assists as evidence of this one. As for the wingers- I think we'd each prefer the pair we drafted, haha. I think my pair stood out more among their peers, but your pair played in what was almost certainly a stronger era.
On defense, I think you drafted the better group. I have the best of the bunch (and the best player in the series) in Shore, but I think you end up with better depth. The defenders in the top four probably go Shore/Siebert/Campbell/F. Patrick/Heller/Flett, right? It's close, but you have the edge, in my opinion.
For goalies, we have the two best in this draft, but Vezina is the superior player (I know Vezina, Gardiner, and Benedict usually go pretty closely in the main ATD, but I think we've uncovered enough as a group to really distinguish between the 3, right? Vezina, then Gardiner, then Benedict a bit behind). I'm not going to sweat over the backups, haha.
This ended up being longer than I thought! Anyway, I think this is a close series, with no dramatic advantages or disadvantages anywhere. Hopefully seventies has some time to respond, but if not- thanks for running this thing,
@BenchBrawl , thanks for tallying votes,
@Theokritos , and thanks to all the other GMs that participated and voted along the way. This was one of the more fun drafts I've been a part of.