Thanks for the feedback, HO. (As always). Just a few responses:
*I heaped great praise on Inglewood's defence already. Best 1-2 punch in the draft. In terms of actual ability to mesh, and finding pairings that work (which is more important than personnel), I think Inglewood's top four is the best in the draft. I think our previous opponents, Glace Bay, had a better top four personnel-wise, but we felt we could expose Hollett. We aren't going to expose Eric DesJardins or Jimmy Watson. Solid, solid defencemen. Outside of Mark Howe, they're probably the best defencemen in Flyers history.
*Also keep in mind that it's not just Richard vs. Chelios. It's Richard's line, which includes Frank Boucher, plus the defencemen out there at the time, against Chelios, DesJardins and the forwards that are out there at the time. And that's where I think we have an advantage. One of the things that concerned me most about Glace Bay in the last series was their team defence. Second line was strong defensively. Fourth line was strong defensively. Third line was on par defensively with Inglewood's. Inglewood's team defence isn't as good as Glace Bay's. Not even close. Second line isn't good defensively. Fourth line isn't good defensively. As I said before, outside of the third line, there isn't a good match-up for the Jacks against Cook-Boucher-Richard. I think the world of the guys in Inglewood's top four, but they can only do so much.
*And, to reiterate, if they want to line match the Mosdell line against the Boucher line, that favours us. The Mosdell line isn't going to do much offensively. They might get one or two goals in a seven-game series. (And I think this is a seven-game series). But if they're matched up against Boucher, they're going to be out there more than any other line. So they won't score enough to win a seven-game series. The highly skilled first line won't get enough ice time. The highly skilled second line won't get enough ice time. The rough-and-tumble, talented fourth line won't get enough ice time. And if they want to match Denneny, Heatley or Secord out there against Richard (or Heatley-Savard-Makarov/Secord-Nichols-Guerin against Cook-Boucher-Richard) they're going to be in trouble. A top line against top line match-up we'd welcome, because of Richard vs. Denneny, but Hooley Smith is a really tough guy to play against.
*On the second line front, I think the offensive advantage closes come playoff time. Savard's a magnificent playoff performer. Yes, he benefited from playing against terrible Norris Division teams for most of the 80s, but that only skewers his numbers slightly. He also had two point-per-game post-seasons in Montreal, and he had a magnificent, turn back the clock effort for Chicago in 1995. Heatley's playoff record is good on the surface, but when Ottawa needed him to provide a big goal in 2006 against Buffalo or 2007 against Anaheim (I had Heatley in my playoff pool both years, so I can tell you everything you would want to know about Heatley), he didn't deliver.
-Makarov's playoff record is incomplete. Don't care about the World Championships. Not at this level. Hockey has the most irrelevant world championships in sports. Makarov isn't playing a tournament with best-of-ones. He's playing best-of-sevens. And while his performance in best-on-best tournaments is impressive, again, it's a tournament with best-of-one games (he played in the one best of three in 1987). It's hard to really get a gauge on him because he didn't play a Stanley Cup playoff game until he was 31. His most memorable post-season effort was in 1991, but it was memorable for all the wrong reasons. He nearly played his way out of the league. Calgary tried desperately to unload him after the 1991 playoffs, but there weren't any takers. Makarov re-established himself after 1991. The question is: how do we judge the 1991 playoffs? Is it a reflection of his age (33)? Or is it a reflection of a guy who struggled to adjust to the best-of-seven? (He was held goal-less in 1990, for what it's worth).
-Stevens and Fleury have outstanding playoff records. Stevens was over a point-per-game for his career in the post-season. He's fortunate from a statistical perspective that he rarely played in the playoffs after his play nose-dived in 1995 (it took a step back after the Pilon hit in 1993, but it plummeted after the 1995 season), but bottom line is his production didn't drop in the playoffs, for the most part, at his peak. Fleury, as I mentioned earlier, was leading the playoffs in scoring three straight years (1993, 1994, 1995) when Calgary was eliminated. Lafontaine's playoff numbers are skewered because he played most of his playoff games early in his career. He was well over a point-per-game from 1988 to 1996, but it's also a small sample size. (37 points in 27 games).
-I don't think there's much difference between Lafontaine and Savard offensively. As I've mentioned before, Lafontaine's numbers take a pounding because of a lack of support. He had nothing to work with from 88-89 to 90-91 on Long Island, and he had nothing to work with in Buffalo in 1995-96. He still managed 40 goals each time. Savard had Steve Larmer. And not to take anything away from Savard. The guy was dynamite. But he was fortunate to be able to pass to Larmer, and to do so against soft Norris Division competition in the 80s, while Lafontaine had, uh, Mikko Makela, in the Patrick Division. (Which, with the exception of 1989-90, was a good division during Lafontaine's Islander years).
