I have people over for dinner so I'll respond to some points quickly. Will probably add more thoughts tomorrow or tuesday.
Thanks and likewise for you.
(1) I don't feel this is fair. Yeah, Toe Blake is a better coach than Glen Sather, but he's not a better coach than Glen Sather if you're coaching a team reminiscient of the 1980s Edmonton Oilers, since Sather proved his worth with that type of team. I wouldn't trade Sather for Blake to coach my team.
I have an onslaught of offensive talent on my blueline to support Gretzky, Trottier as the "Messier-like" 2nd line center, Leetch as the "Coffey-like" defenseman on the 1st pairing, but even Harvey, Pilote and Boucher are Top 15 offensive defensemen of all-time.
I feel I succeeded in recreating an ''1980s Oilers-like'' team to sufficient extent that Sather is significantly bonified coaching that team.
(2) I mean... maybe? Let's not underestimate the advantage Trottier has over Forsberg who was made of glass. I don't think Hull & Bentley are that much better than Martinec & Krutov. This seems pretty close, and with Trottier, our lines are at worst equal but I'd probably take mine. Problem is what happens to Brett Hull's efficiency if(read when) he loses Forsberg? Martinec and Krutov are better all-around offensive players.
(3) MacInnis is a Smythe winner but is that more impressive than what Pilote did in 1961? And you forgot to include two extraordinary playoff performers on my team in Bernie Parent and Georges Boucher. Not to mention you go so far as to include Bob Bourne, but then let's just include Ted Lindsay for me. I know Lindsay wasn't the best playoff performer, but certainly he's better than Bob Bourne?! Or maybe Baldy Northcott, who played great and led the playoffs in goals when the Maroons won the cup? Or Adam Foote? Let's just go down to Ryan Kesler who was excellent for Vancouver while we're at it
Just that your choice of players to enumerate seemed pretty random and borderline misleading.
(4) A lot of crazy stuff going on in this wall of text. Yeah, if we assume that the gap between Harvey and Fetisov is not that big after all, and you know for all matters and purpose let's just posit Pilote = MacInnis (while we're at it !), let's overfocus on defense and ignore offense (even though my team is clearly build as a 1980s Oilers replica and possesses four of the Top 15 offensive defensemen of all-time with none of them being bad defensively !), then yeah, I mean in that case it's a wash.
I want to point out that all of my defensemen are also on their strong side. Harvey played primarily on the right side once Bouchard retired. Leetch played on the left side. Pilote on the right side and G.Boucher on the left side with both Gerard, Hitchman and Clancy.
(5) Why is Foote very weak for a 1st unit PK?
Why are Boucher and Pilote pretty weak for a 2nd PK unit? I feel like they are fairly strong.
I have another advantage concerning my PP (but not on the actual PP), in that my 1st and 2nd PP units correspond exactly to my 1st and 2nd ES units. The lines and pairings don't change from ES to PP. Even on the PK there's no difficulty for Sather to operate it once the man-disadvantage ends because there's no mixing of 1st and 2nd ES unit players.
1st Bolded Part:
-Like, I said, I think Glen Sather is a great fit for your team.
But is mine not a Toe Blake wet dream?
He gets Maurice Richard, which is probably the most important coach-player relationship ever. He gets a player similar in many ways to Jean Beliveau (great leaders with similar all time resumes) with Crosby. Pittsbugh has very similar goal scoring depth the 50's Habs dynasty (Hull is much like Geoffrion to compliment Richard).
Blake enjoys strong glue guys on each of his wings with strong 2 way depth down the middle at C. Has numerous players who can flex all over the place, and we know Blake was a proponent of being able to do that. Versatility. Pittsburgh has that in spades. You have superstars up front, numerous glue guys, strong 2 way play up and down the lineup.
Defensively, like those mid to late 50's Habs, Blake has Fetisov to play a similar role to Harvey. Fetisov was considered the best defensemen in the world by many at his peak. Fetisov can do anything that Harvey can as far as deployability (good high, good music). I simply think Harvey is one of the great defensive dman (honestly he's probably #1) and is still also well above average offensively. But where I think Montreal is better as an offensive duo on the top pair, Pittsburgh is clearly better defensively speaking. I absolutely think less will break past a Fetisov-Horton pairing than Leetch-Harvey (Leetch is going to see A LOT of Richard and Hull. I like my chances there).
And if I want my defensive pairing to have an advantage I'd want it to be defensively, especially with the offensive talent our teams have up front.
The same thing is true of the 2nd pairing and 3rd. Boucher-Pilote is better offensively than Johnson-MacInnis but it's also going to be more prone to getting beat IMO.
Same thing with the bottom pairing. Giordano, IMO, looks well out of place here. I think Pittsburgh simply enjoys a deeper half dozen dmen.
I'm not claiming Pittsburgh has any real advantage with the defensemen, but I think I've illustrated that I'm clearly on par, at least, top to bottom.
2nd Bolded Part:
-The injury thing has to be taken lightly here no? Especially since we didn't draft spares and obviously aren't going to play a man short over the course of a series. With that being said, as I opened with, Pittsburgh is ery flexible. There are all sorts of options I can go with. I could move Joe Malone up to the 2nd line, flip Howe, Bentley or Giroux there from LW as well.
And I certainly agree Trottier is better than Forsberg. They are similar players overall (both uber physical, both clutch players, both strong defensively, both playmakers, though Forsberg was more creative and Trottier the better goal scorer). Not to mention, Trottier was used to having Mike Bossy, a winger who was more of a sniper, north south. Martinec, is more of a puck on his stick, creative wizard. Forsberg has an elite sniper who plays much more of a cycle game, which suits Forsberg perfectly. I think Hull is at least a half step above Martinec here because of fit and overall resume, and there is zero doubt in my mind that Malone is a full notch better than Krutov. .
I absolutely think Pittsburgh has a solid enough advantage on both wings to make up the difference at C.
3rd Bolded Part:
-I wasn't misleading at all. Gretzky, as a I said is the best playoff performer (I have him #2 behind Roy but whatever) ever. Harvey is elite as well. Trottier made the top 25 of the all time playoff performers list. Foyston took the last top 40 spot. Leetch is certainly above average. Same with Martinec and Krutov. Obiously Parent had the 2 legendary runs with Philly but as I critiqued, fairly IMO, is that 2 years is not enough of a resume to feel good about in a 12 team league like this. IMO. Parent has essentially nothing of note beyond 74 and 75.
Is Lindsay really THAT much better than Bourne in the playoffs? Bourne was a STUD for 4 consecutive years for one of the all time great dynasties in sports history. I drafted him in the 1st year I ever participated because I thought he was really undervalued as a bottom 6 glue guy, with some hidden offensive pop when he's surrounded by high end talent, and strong playoff showings. He scored 74 points in 74 games across 4 years of Islander titles. He had 5 shorthanded goals (at least 1 each year), 4 game winners. Bourne could really play anywhere in the lineup. He was a strong shadow, elite, elite skater. Good checker. Just the ultimate utility man. Obviously, Lindsay is MILES better as a hockey player but in the playoffs, that gap is minimal IMO.
Pittsburgh has it's own mega elite postseason guy in Richard. Crosby is easily a top 20 player now all time after the back to back Cups/Smythes. Forsberg is just inside that top 20 line. Brett Hull can't be terribly far outside the top 40. I absolutely believe Fetisov would be ranked very highly if the top playoff performer listed had included non NHL players. Fetisov's international record for that group is arguably the greatest ever.
I think you have 2 guys that are average to below average postseason players on the 1st line alone in Lindsay and Conacher.
Where is Pittsburgh's short comings in the top 6 from a big game standpoint? Malone who moved up to the 2nd line LW was very strong in his 3 SC challenge games. Steller in 1919. Didn't have a ton of chances but generally played above the mean. Howe, is probably a lot like Lindsay in all honesty. I just think in the top 4 Pittsburgh has a bit more clutch. Schmidt and Foyston obviously give you a nice leg up in the bottom 6 though.
Defensively Harvey is a legend in the playoffs, but honestly, is Fetisov not in that tier? If he's not, he's darn close. I think Leetch and Horton are in similar places (Leetch with peak, Horton with longevity on Cup winners). Mac and Pilote are both close. Same with Boucher and Johnson. Zubov>Foote.
4th Bolded Part:
-Harvey is usually ranked in the 5-8 range all time and I'm more than comfortable with that. But Fetisov is a bordline top 20 player who is equally strong offensively and defensively. I think he's one of the few defensemen all time without much of a gap from one side of the spectrum to the other in that regard. He controlled the pace of a game much like Harvey. I think Horton is a full notch better than Leetch. He came in 30+ places above Leetch in the recently completed top 100 project, for reference sake. There is less of a gap between Pilote and MacInnis. And I certainly think Johnson is a touch better than Boucher. As I said before, depth matters. I like Pittsburgh's bottom pair more than Montreal's.
Plus, again, I don't see Leetch as anything more than an average defensive player at ES. I don't have that problem with Fetisov-Horton. Now, MacInnis falls into the same camp as Pilote, objectively speaking but Johnson>Boucher defending at ES.
Leetch, Boucher, Gio are going to have Richard, Hull and Alfredsson coming down their sides.
I don't think there is anything crazy with that analysis. I think it's accurate and more than a fair assessment.
5th Bolded Part:
-Foote doesn't belong on a 1st team PK unit here IMO. His usage is good enough I think, but it's not like the units he manned were better than average at defending on the PK. In a 20+ team league, sure, but he seems light in this tournament. He's just over his head against a lot of the players that will be manning PP units, including guys like Crosby, Richard, Hull, Forsber, Mac, Fetisov, etc. Pilote played a decent amount on the kill, but again he's not somebody that's going to give you strong returns there IMO. He probably won't kill you but compared to Fetisov/Horton-Schoenfeld/Johnson Pittsburgh simply has a better group of defensemen on the kill based on talent, reputation or cold hard numbers. And lastly I really like how physical the Pittsburgh group is. Not only are my 4 defensemen on the kill great or elite defensively, they can bang at a high level. You're going to have a real tough time getting shots through, people to the net, etc.
Special teams roles - 1960-2017
As for Sather having an easier time rolling lines out, especially between special teams and ES? I actually think that benefits Pittsburgh in multiple ways.
First, you're predictable. Toe Blake will know exactly what you're doing before you do. If you want to keep things simple, you're playing right into the brilliance of Blake. The chess master.
Secondly, Blake having the ability to flex players all over the lineup, W to C and C to W mirrors what he was about in real life. He was a grand master at mixing and matching lines until the right fits were found and you need the right kind of versatile players to pull that off. Pittsburgh accomplishes that.