I can’t help but think that you are underestimating the skills of the KLM, they are a line which was able to dominate international competitions for the better part of a decade – even when playing against players such as Gainey (1981 Canada Cup) where both Makarov and Krutov were able to put up over a point per game averages as very young, not fully developed, players at the time. Furthermore no matter who was put up against the trio they were always able to succeed and well their records show that to be the case – all three of them Soviet MVPs. But what really gets me is that you honestly think that a very skilled defensive forward in Gainey, a player whose highest point total was 47, placing him ninth on his own team will score more than the KLM line would. I don’t know how to argue against that because it is one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on these boards. I love Gainey and I think he will have a significant role in this series but scorer he was not. Provost sacrificed his scoring and to expect him to do both is only setting yourself up for failure. Lastly the cocky attitude and the swagger around your team is generally not a very good one to have in a playoff type atmosphere. I strongly suspect the KLM line to continue to put up the points against the Oilers much as they did against the Metros.
I'm not underestimating the KLM at all. To watch them play was really something else. That said they never played against a premier checking line like this. I don't imagine Makarov and Krutov to have success if what they're trying isn't working. They don't seem like they'd adapt well. Its not cockyness either to say Gainey and Provost would outscore them either if they're frustrated. Provost was an opportunistic scorer at times and Gainey had some offensive talent at times also proven by his Conn Smythe winning year.
Kovalchuk has a higher ceiling than Fleury – when it comes to regular season goals sure I guess that is the case but you are putting a player who has yet to taste the playoffs in a difficult situation to succeed and I wouldn’t doubt it if the speedy Fleury (who has what the Atlanta tinman is missing) to dominate in that matchup. Messier vs. Kennedy should be interesting but in terms of overall quality of game I must take Messier once again, just a better player. Both great competitors but only one of them has won the Conn Smythe trophy (and realistically only one of them deserved to win the Hart as it isn’t a lifetime achievement award as it was in the 1955 season). Plus Messier was no slouch and knew how to take care of business in his own end as an all round player. But what I like about my line moreso than your line is the nasty factor that your team is missing, something that can be very beneficial come playoff time.
Ted Kennedy won three post THN's Conn Smythe's. Whether the Hart was awarded as a lifetime acheivement or not, Kennedy was a special player much like Messier. Special enough to be awarded a lifetime acheivement award anyways... Messier was nasty no doubt, nasty at giveaways which he was prone to do in his own end. But no doubt Messier was a better all-around player and one of my all-time favourites. Kennedy vs Messier is a very intriguing matchup though.
I don't see Fleury dominating Kovalchuk either. Fleury at his peak was pretty dynamic and even if you dis-liked him (which I did) you respected the little puke. He never lead the league in goals though which of course Kovalchuk did. There's nothing in Kovalchuks game that suggests he'd disappear in the playoffs.
The fact that you think one of the all time greats in McGee is in anyway similar to Sutter that is a laughable concept at the best of times and embarrassing at the worst… McGee I would say has Sutter beat on every single level and one of the few players that could beat him in terms of heart and desire. Lindros vs. Sittler – that is an interesting one as before the injuries Lindros was a wrecking ball and someone who could mow anyone down, Sittler on the other hand didn’t have the same physical aspect to the game and was more of a playmaker than Lindros was. Really I don’t know which player I would take but it is pretty close. Lanny vs. LeClair, both have solid chemistry with their center, I would tend to pick Lanny because I have met him and he is a very standup guy but I wouldn’t switch the teams if I was either of us because it would only serve to make both teams worse. Funny how that is sometimes.
I got to meet Lanny and play hockey with him as well. Total class act. I've got a big a man-crush on him as possible and he's a god in my books. Pretty much the exact opposite opinion I have of Tkachuk
I don't know how you can say McGee has more heart and desire than Brian Sutter, I don't think its even possible. If McGee is the dynamic scorer he's made out to be than Sutter isn't going to make life easy on him. McGee is described as a punishing hitter who could score, much the same description of Brian Sutter. It aint that laughable.......
I would take Hlinka everyday over Poulin, I don’t even know how that is a fair competition, one of them was the best player in Czechoslovakia and the other was what a figure skater who was third best on the Flyers in his best year. Once again a complete mismatch but not in the direction that you think it is. Pitre against Holik, I think you really underrate Holik (if you even know who he is) but I will admit the the aure around Pitre is to great to ignore. St. Louis won the cup. Hadfield went home. Sorry but if you want to go into battle with players who quit on their team because they don’t get to play as much as they feel they should then your team will be the weaker for it, especially if that player is on your fourth line!