I’m quite tired. Sorry if this is poorly written…
FORWARDS: The Rangers have incredible talent and creativity on their top two lines, with three Art Ross winners plus four-time goal-scoring leader Pavel Bure. They also have The Tank, Viktor Krutov, who will stand in the Bruins’ crease and harass Brimsek. While the Bruins have more toughness and two-way play due to Messier, Keon and Fleury, it’s impossible to overlook the Rangers’ incredible skill and speed on their top two lines. Both teams feature excellent third lines: Damphousse can score, Prentice is an excellent two-way threat and Nystrom is tough and gritty; Laprade and Lehtinen are outstanding shutdown forwards who play a clean, disciplined game while Corson provides significant toughness and agitation (I’d pay good money to see Corson at LW vs Fleury at RW). The Rangers’ fourth line has more scoring ability while the Bruins’ is tougher. Overall, Boston is a bit tougher and better defensively, but the Rangers’ incredible talent throughout is hard to pass up. Advantage: New York.
DEFENSE: These teams have two dominant top pairs. Coffey gives the Rangers the speed and creativity necessary for them to utilize their transition game while Lowe provides safe, smart plays and toughness. The Bruins’ top pair is much lower-risk but no less effective. Pilote/Green is a tougher pair and is better defensively, though obviously they lack Coffey’s productivity. The Coffey pair suits the Rangers’ wide-open, offensive style while Pilote pair allows the Bruins to play a steadier two-way game.
I prefer the Bruins’ bottom four. Pratt and Gonchar were dominant offensively; they had the speed and talent to start rushes or quarterback a powerplay. Wentworth was also strong offensively and was very smart positionally, while Korab provides strength and toughness. The Rangers have moderately talented blueliners in Schneider and Suter, but they’re hardly all-time greats due to offense alone. Will the lack of truly talented offensive blueliners, outside of Coffey, hurt the Rangers’ ability to utilize their speed and creativity upfront? Ramsey, Greschner Suter provide toughness and solid defensive play. Overall I think that Boston’s steadier, more balanced blueline wins. Advantage: Boston.
GOALIES: I like Belfour, but Boston has a big edge here. Brimsek was named the best or second-best goalie for an incredible eight years in a row, interrupted only by WWII. He was also a three-time finalist for the Hart trophy. That’s an incredible stretch of both dominance and consistency. He was a good playoff performer too (won two Cups, and GAA dropped 7%). Belfour is an average to below-average starter in this draft and, while he’s a good playoff performer, he can’t match Brimsek’s incredible dominance and longevity. Lumley (won one Cup and twice named to the first all-star team) is much better than Joseph, so the Bruins’ goaltending advantage is reduced somewhat. Advantage: Boston.
GRIT: Pretty close overall. I was concerned seeing a team with Bure, Dionne and Crosby, but the Rangers have a lot of balance with Propp, Lehtinen and Corson, among others. Krutov (in his prime, as opposed to during his fairly unsuccessful time in the NHL) appeared to be a very tough, though not overly aggressive, player (sort of like Esposito or Ciccarelli). The bottom six forwards and blueliners are fairly close in terms of toughness. You could make a case either way, but I don’t see a definite advantage for either team.
INTANGIBLES: Raleh said it best. The Bruins have six Conn Smythe winners (including their star defenseman and three of their top six forwards) and a lot of proven playoff performers. As clutch as Lafleur, Coffey and Propp are, they can’t match Boston’s experience throughout their lineup. Dionne’s weak playoff performances, and Crosby’s lack of experience, are marks against the Rangers. Advantage: Boston.
COACHING: Sather probably isn’t the best coach from a tactical/strategic perspective, but he knew when to sit back and let his star players use their unique talent and creativity to generate scoring chances. The Rangers are perfect for Sather: they’re fast, skilled and geared towards offense. Nielson is the opposite: very calculated and strategic, and a good match for Boston’s two-way players. Still, I prefer Sather. In addition to vastly more experience (4 Cup victories vs. 1 finals appearance (though of course their supporting casts had a big role in that)), the Rangers almost appear to be a team designed to be coached by Sather. (I’ll add that while I don’t think the potential for Nielson/Messier conflict is huge, it is another factor in favor of New York). Advantage: New York.