Goaltending: Fuhr or Cheevers? I believe Cheevers is the better goalie, though they are actually very similar and quite close. Fuhr was good, not great, on the offense-first Oilers. I don't think your team has that kind of firepower. Fuhr was abysmal in Toronto, LA and Buffalo, only to become a good, not great, workhorse for Blues. He then ended up on low note in Calgary but that doesn't matter. Like Fuhr, Cheevers was a money goalie behind a strong team. I do believe I have built a team in this mold - certainly closer than your team is to Oilers. Cheevers 'wasted' a large part of his prime in the WHA, being the best goalie there. He was never the workhorse that Fuhr was, but he also never sucked like Fuhr did in the midst of his prime.
The regular season doesn't matter at this point. We both know what Grant Fuhr's specialty was, and we both know what Cheevers wasn't known for. It's too bad he went to the WHA for three of his prime years, but even there he couldn't win! It's the single biggest mark on Cheevers' record. I know that, you know that, everybody knows it. The guy was not a winner.
What IMO makes the biggest difference in goaltending is the backups - Hextall blows Hodge out of the water, no contest there.
I'll second seventies here: Why is this? I mean, I can be swayed by a good argument, but what is it?
I also believe that Burke is clearly ahead of Robertson when it comes to depth.
If this proves to be a divisive point I'll expand on it, but Sean Burke never won a Cup, was never a post-season AST.
Defensemen: You have an outsdanding #1 in Bourque, clearly better than my Cleghorn - however Cleghorn as #1 is far from a slouch. Behind Bourque though, the defense doesn't look impressive. Blake as #2 is a stretch, his true prime was short. In spite of his mastery of the hip check, he wasn't ever great defensively, nor was he truly elite on offense. Outstanding physical presence, but no speedster. He won the Cup as #2 behind Bourque, so I see you went for chemistry there, but is that enough? I am afraid Bourque might have to do cover for Blake getting out of position to make a hit a lot, mitigating his offensive potential.
Yes, Bourque will have to cover for Blake, who received several Norris shares (and a win) during his career.
You're making a (common) mistake in evaluating Blake. When we talk about whether or not he was good defensively,
we're comparing him to the top 150 of all-time. It's no question who the better player was in any dimension when compared to, say, Craig Hartsburg. There's no possible argument that paints Hartsburg- however skilled he was- as being better in any category.
Overall, as an unit, I'd dare to call my defensemen a bit better. You have advantage on the top end, but the actual way the pairings are setup seem to me to be in my favor, and my third pairing is clearly better.
On a one-to-one basis, my defense is significantly better.
Bourque vs. Cleghorn
We've already established this.
Blake vs. Hartsburg
Are you kidding me? Again, there really needn't be discussion here.
Lowe vs. Hatcher
It's interesting you chose to denigrate Lowe/Foote offensively when nothing in Hatcher's record indicates he was significantly better in this regard.
Placement in Team Defense Scoring (to age 30)
Hatcher: 5th, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd
K. Lowe: 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 2nd
When you consider he had five 2nd place finishes on the Dynasty Oilers, it really brings into perspective how effective and underrated he was at providing offense. Hatcher, not so much. Even with the extra year (Lowe entered the league at 20) Hatch was a top-two threat offensively exactly once from the blueline.
Foote vs. Rafalski
Two vastly different players. Neither have post-season ASTs, both have multiple Rings, both have represented their country at the Olympics more than once. I do find it interesting, though, that there is such a disparity in ATOI since the league began to track the stat:
Foote, career- 24:23
Rafalski, career- 23:02
When one considers that Foote never, ever was anyone's choice for a powerplay, it really shows you how much ES and PK time the guy has gotten on a year-to-year basis. This isn't even a recent thing caused by playing on bad BJ and Avs teams- even when playing alongside the likes of Bourque and Blake, Foote was playing 25+ minutes.
Anyway, they're about as good as the other at their specialty. Tough to compare otherwise.
Owen vs. Korab
The worst thing anyone has ever been able to say about Owen is that is career was short. That, or he was only 'decent' defensively.
Let's compare the seasons we can- age 27-31, or five years.
Owen: 7th, 12th, 2nd, 2nd, 23rd
Korab: 15th, 12th, 18th, 11th, 101st
That's league defensive scoring.
Korab only played 54 games in his 31 year-old season, but even if you make it his 32nd (52 points, 22nd in NHL) it doesn't change the picture much.
You can argue longevity all you like, but the rest of Korab's career was forgettable at best. He had six seasons where he placed in the top 25 of defensive scoring, but totaled only 167 points in the rest of his 521 games and wasn't a top-tier defensive guy.
Hajt vs. Wesley
Wesley was known for being a skilled two-way guy up until 25. After that, he sniffed 30 points only once, never mind 40. What happened? Well, he was traded. It wasn't so much where he was traded to that was the problem, but where he was traded
from. I don't think it's any coincidence at all that as soon as he and the guy on my first pairing were separated, Wesley never touched above-average scoring numbers again.
Forwards: ... They're worse on faceoffs, and lacking defensively. Sure, Sakic, Aurie, Steen, Poulin, Tremblay & Gottselig are good two-way guys. But...
I think it's sort of funny (in a haha way) that you mention half my forward core as being 'good two-way guys', but call the group as a whole 'lacking' defensively in the preceding sentence.
Especially the fourth, that's a very good line that can contribute on both ends of ice. But how much icetime exactly will they see remains a question.
That line's going to have to see a lot of time, especially in this series. But they're built for it, they've won Rings doing it, and I think they can handle 12-15 minutes a night against your big guns.
My third line is pure physical, checking line. It's similar to your fourth, in a way. Ideal to crush your 2nd and 3rd line.
So your third line is going double-shift against my 2nd and 3rd lines? Good to know. Gottselig-Poulin-Tremblay will eat Smyth-Bain-Dineen for breakfast and our first lines will be too busy trying to match each other to product much.
Fourth line is a two-way line that keeps up the physicality. Can your smaller, softer forwards keep up with the onslaught? I doubt it.
Who is your fourth line going to play that's smaller and softer? Our fourths are the same size, and you're really not thinking of matching them up against my top unit are you? Because that's a match-up I'll take every time.
On penalty kill, your team looks good. I wouldn't call it better, but it's certainly quite comparable. The forwards are all good, and the weakest link is Hajt - who's not exactly weak on PK at all, so really, the PK's good. I'd call it a wash but feel free to convince me otherwise.
I'd call them a wash.
