There was still another league, though, was there not?
Yes, the OPHL did exist, but clearly this was a minor league. Only a handful of recognizable names (and I mean recognizable to the posters in here of course) can be found when looking over the scoring chart. Ottawa defeated the champion of this league, Galt, en route to the Cup. The score was 7-4, but it is said that only the great goaltending of the Galt keeper kept it respectable.
To elaborate on the match-up some more:
I like the situation between the pipes, and I think we have the edge. Both Kolzig and Burke had good, but not HOF-calibre careers. But at Kolzig's peak he was one of the top netminders in the game, something that really can't be said about Burke. With all due respect to Burke, who did play some great hockey in Phoenix, he was never really a threat to the "Big 4" of goaltending in the 90's. Kolzig in fact was, leading his team to the Cup final in 1998, and winning a Vezina in 2000.
Outside of 2000, (ironically his Vezina year) Kolzig was usually very good in the playoffs, but was let down by the under-achievers in front of him. Burke never usually had great teams in front of him either, but his playoff performances, at least from a numbers standpoint, were often mediocre to poor. The sample size is rather small for Burke though, as despite playing 820 regular season games, he had just 21 playoff appearances in his whole career outside of his rookie season (clearly his best playoff outing in nearly leading the under-dog devils to the 1988 final).
I agree with you, ES, that our first line is a bit of a question mark. To look at, it's a bit of a hodge-podge, with players from three distinctly different eras. What I like is the talent that's there. All three players were legitimate stars. If Nash is at his best, we have a great blend of size and scoring ability on LW. Oliver has the ability to be primarily a goal scorer, but he's a little more balanced than his stats would indicate. While not an elite playmaker, I think he should be able to get the puck to Nash.
Oliver is also a leader with lots of big-game playoff experience, something that he can hopefully pass along to Nash, who has no post-season experience to speak of. Oliver was a key component of the early Bruins teams that enjoyed good success.
Real Cloutier had his off ice issues, but if he can stay focussed, he can be a dynamic producer for us. Two WHA scoring titles, and he was able to maintain well over a point per game average in his best two NHL seasons before he faded from the scene.
I'd say the bottom-six forwards on both teams are pretty much a wash. On your side, Zezel has the ability to bring better-than-expected offense if needed in that role. He could be valuable in the face-off dot late in a game whether you're down by a goal or leading by a goal. The tenacious McVeigh is IMO the best pure checker/energy guy on either side. Despite his pedestrian 10 goals in 30 games, he was a Western league 1st AST slection in 1922-23. He was considered one of the Americans' steadiest and most relaible forwards during his time spent in New York. He did manage to hit double-digits in goals a few times as well, in an era where that wasn't exactly an unimportant accomplishment.
Our defense is made up of guys who could all log top-paring minutes. I feel this could be to our advantage in a long series or long OT situation. We don't need to grind 25+ minutes out of our top pairing, beacuse even our third paring could easily handle 20 minutes if called upon.
In general, our number one and number three pairings feature one more offensive-minded defender and one more defensive-minded defender. Our second pairing of Lake and Shore should have no problem meshing with each other, as they manned to Ottawa defense together for a few years. Both enjoyed their best years clearing the crease for Ottawa goalie Percy LeSueur, and played very solid defense in spite of the forwards (our second line to be exact) garnering more of the attention.
The Mincer Rays might have a slight edge in the offense their blueline corps will produce. Rautikallio is clearly our best offensive rearguard, but could be offset by Van Boxmeer. Souray can produce as well, but his prowess is usually restricted to the powerplay, so it's more situational.
I do feel that Yushkevich can be a key factor in the series. A gritty, physical guy who can play those tough defensive minutes. He's the guy on our team that opposing forwards will dread having to go up against. I'm not sure if he has an equivalent on the Mincer Rays' blueline (Marois looks to be the closest) that can be asked to play that specific role, which could perhaps be the edge we need in what should be a tight series.
As far as coaching goes you can't argue with the success Kilrae's had. When you've been around that long, clearly you have the ability to adapt to changes. That being said, Cleghorn was a bit of an innovator himself, being the first coach to change lines on the fly. An old era coach should also suit the large amount of old era players we have on our roster.