Lets get started!
1st line:
Two very strong first unit are facing each other. Jean Béliveau is a beast, and one of the best player of all-time. On his right side, Andy Bathgate is another great offensive weapon. For the Nordiques, Mark Messier is a playoff beast. On his right side, a fantastic goalscorer with grit in Bill Cook. The difference between those pairing are minimal, although I might just prefer having the better player in Jean Beliveau on my side. The biggest difference is on the left side. Bert Olmstead is an elite glue-guy, a great playmaker, who mesh extremely well with Beliveau and Bathgate. for the Nordiques, Richard Martin is another great goalscorer, but isn't close to bring the incredible set of intangibles Bert Olmstead brings.
Beliveau > Messier (Messier will have to play is very best!)
Bathgate < Cook
Olmstead > Martin (A big advantage for the AC)
AC holds the advantage, and this will be a key matchup for the Nordiques. If the Messier-Cook be effective to dish his fair share of goals while slowing down Beliveau & Bathgate (not an easy task!), then the Nordiques will most probably prevail.
Is there any reason to believe Cook will be effective slowing down Bathgate? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suggest Beliveau and Olmstead will slow down Messier and Cook? This is a pretty obvious advantage to Pittsburgh and I have the second or third best defensive player on either line in Olmstead.
2nd line:
Bernie Morris is a great offensive player, who can score goals or pass the puck just as well. For the Nordiques, we have Eric Lindros, another fantastic offensive weapon, but who also bring such an impressive array of physical attribute. A players that was fear by many when he played, I think Bernie Morris will be outmatched by the better centre and one of the best 2nd liner in this draft. He will definitely have his hand full. Sweeney Schriner is another great offensive weapon, who brings size (but didn't use it that often) and speed. He's a very good offensive weapon for a second line. However, the Nordiques have someone extremely similar to Schriner in Didier Pitre, another great offensive weapon (but not as good as Schriner), but faster. He also possess impressive strength and size, which makes him difficult to get the puck away from him. Pitre was also a better defensive player and a better playoff performer, which doesn't say much, as Schriner was abysmal for a player of his quality. Steve Larmer is a two-way player that will be the defensive conscience of his line. For the Nordiques, Sid Smith is not as good defensively as Larmer, but brings much more offensive credential; a much better goalscorer.
Morris < Lindros (A big advantage for the Nordiques)
Schriner = Pitre (Although in the playoffs, I would take Pitre)
Larmer = S.Smith (both bring different things to the table)
Agreed Lidros is better than Morris, but I really disagree with your two other comparisons. What makes Pitre in Schriner's class offensively? He led the NHA in scoring twice and IHL once, Schriner has two Art Rosses and a second place finish. Looking at your bio he still had plenty of seasons up front, so I'm not sure how playing defense some years stymied his offense that much. I think Schriner's the better offensive player overall, he was a better playmaker. I'd say they're fairly comparable in not having much more than their one-way game. Both were big but used their size for protecting the puck.
I think Larmer's better offensively than Smith too. Smith has the better finishes, but Larmer's there with his three best seasons and certainly pulls away when you look at their best 7 years.
Smith vsX: 82.61, 77.27, 72.97, 65.22, 63.93, 62.30, 56.94
Larmer vsX: 87.83, 77.78, 72.58, 69.77, 67.94, 63.79, 63.70
I think second lines are another advantage for Pittsburgh. You have the best center, and I hold the advantage on both wings. I've called this my weakest line defensively all draft, but it seems Larmer alone pushes my line's defensive abilities ahead of yours. When Lindros isn't possessing the puck, will there be anyone on the line shutting down my offensively-inclined forwards?
3rd line:
I think Neil Colville returned to the spotlight in this draft, and deservedly so. One of the very true versatile player, who owns credential at both C or D. However, he was primary a centre IMO, and it's good you're using him this way. Fred Stanfield is a good playmaker, but Neil Colville is the better player of the two. However, just to be sure I point this out: when he was playing centre, Colville was not a defensive stalwart and definitely an offensive player. Red Berenson is a good all-around player, important on his team special team. However, he's no match for Alf Smith, an elite 3rd liner, the best 3rd liner of both teams, who brings the full package on the table. Another fearless player that any soft player will hate (if not be scared) to play against. Jimmy Ward is a nice little player, but even after reading the whole biography (very long biography might I say!) I wouldn't tag him as a true two-way forward. Not one-way hole by any means, but his scoring placement lacks, and his overall intangible are decent, but not extraordinary. On the Nordiques right side, Gordie Drillon is very much the best offensive weapon of any third line in the draft. He brings speed, size, an incredible shot and the willingness to score goals in front of the net. Don't ask him though
Colville > Stanfield
Berenson < A.Smith (a very good edge for the Nordiques)
Ward < Drillon (A big edge, again, for the Nordiques)
The Nordiques holds a distinct edge on the third line.
Colville is significantly better than Stanfield. Stanfield's bio has references to his abilities forechecking, was he a defensive stalwart ever? Here's the vsX
Colville: 95.45, 88.37, 84.09, 81.82, 62.22, 61.11, 31.75 (played D)
Stanfield: 76.19, 76.00, 75.00, 67.52, 67.44, 50.47, 46.46
No qualms with Berenson vs Alf Smith. You gave Red his credit, but Smith is just better, especially in a bottom six role.
I think you underrate Ward, but I agree Drillon's clearly better offensively. I'd say Ward is probably faster, he was one of the fastest in the league during his time. Ward's offense was better than his point finishes show.
Ward: 77.5, 76, 75.86, 75, 62.22, 59.09, 53.49
What's wrong with calling him a two-way forward? Nikjr has at least 10 quotes in the section of the bio he labeled 2 way forward. There's quotes from 1928 when he was a rookie and a number from the 1935 playoffs. Either way he's worlds better than Drillon defensively.
I agree your line is better offensively, but is really that big a margin overall? You have one of the worst defensive players in the draft on the line, an undersized center who's a better fourth liner than third, and Alf Smith. Where's the evidence of Stanfield's defensive game? Are you really comfortable calling this a distinct edge when my third line maligned for a lack of defense is clearly better defensively?
Overall, the AC have the edge with their first line, but the Nordiques have a much better depth in term of goalscoring and hurting the opposition. In a long, gruesome, 7-games series, now in the quarter final, depth is most of the time the difference maker.
In terms of pure offense, my team is better. My first and second lines are better offensively. Your third line is better than mine, but mine is still pretty solid and centered by Neil Colville who creates his own chances. If we're talking overall depth, fourth lines count too.
Steen: 63.31, 62.22, 58.26, 51.59, 51.16, 48.65, 47.58
Handzus: 66.67, 56.38, 50.00, 42.31, 41.51, 38.53, 38.18
Pappin: 88.46, 68.87, 65.42, 61.63, 49.61, 45.71, 45.00
Smyl: 70.97, 65.55, 53.17, 53.06, 47.41, 46.67, 43.97
Walter: 60.48, 59.18, 55.46, 50.37, 48.28, 42.59, 38.89
Bridgman: 59.18, 54.29, 50.86, 48.41, 45.19, 44.68, 44.04
Clearly fourth liner scores here, but Steen seems to be the best offensively. I think Pappin's the second best and Smyl third.
Where is Quebec's edge in depth scoring coming from?
----
1st pairing:
Brian Leetch is a decent #1 defenceman who brings offence to the table. Alex Kasatonov, is a good #2 defenceman, who also brings offence to the table. The pairing is overall very good, but both defenceman were definitely offence first defencemn, and although far from terrible in their own end, I might have preferred to have someone a little less offensively driven next to Leetch. No big deal though. For the Nordiques, Jack Stewart is a lower-end #1 defenceman who's mainly a stay-at-home defenceman with a thunderous body check. His partner is Babe Siebert, a great two-way defenceman who can also play with the roughest players. Stats are a bit misleading for Siebert, and actually any player who played significant time at both forward and defence (the same can be said for Didier Pitre)
Leetch > Stewart
Kasatonov = Siebert (I like Kasatonov, but considering the position duality, Siebert is just as good as Kasatonov IMO)
Kasatonov was not offensive first at all, he was the rock of the Green Unit playing with Fetisov in the USSR and briefly in NJ.
Hockey Scouting Report 1990-1991
The Finesse Game
Unlike fellow Soviet Viacheslav Fetisov, Kasatonov's skills are far more subtle and far less dramatic.
All he does is get excellent reads of the ice at both ends, contain and control both blue lines, force turnover and speed the transition game. He just doesn't do it with the flair Fetisov does - when Fetisov does it.
The Physical Game
As with his finesse game, Kasatonov's physical game is a subtle one but highly defined nonetheless.
His excellent skating ability puts him in good position for takeouts, and his strength and balance allow him to pin his man to the boards. He excellently uses his body to gain position, plays a willing physical game in all areas and cannot be intimidated.
Hockey Scouting Report 1991-1992
The Finesse Game
Kasatonov is a blue-collar Soviet, if there could be such a thing. Where most Soviet players have graceful, seamless games, Kasatonov is a worker.
He is an excellent stick-checker and is able to turn the flow back quickly the other way and jump into the play offensively. He is an excellent penalty-killer, aggressive without losing his position.
Hockey Scouting Report 1992-1993
One of the league's better penalty-killing defensemen, an underrated Kasatonov skill is lifting the puck from deep in his defensive zone to center ice on his backhand.
He was plenty physical too even if he didn't blow people up with hits
New York Times - 4/11/1991
"It doesn't matter if it's Lemieux or Coffey," Kasatonov said after today's practice. "You have to be very strong and aggressive against every player in the playoffs."
Neil Colville isn't double-dipping and being called a shutdown center, why can't Seibert's puckmoving abilities as defenseman stand up on their own?
I think Seibert and Kasatonov are very close, but I give Kasatonov a slight edge. Either way, Leetch over Stewart swings this pair in Pittsburgh's favor.
2nd pairing:
Pat Stapleton is a good #3 defenceman, who brings two-way abilities, but perhaps more offence than defence. Also, my dad always preferred Stapleton to Bill White, so that's that! Frantisek Pospisil is an elite #3 defenceman, who brings pretty much everything to the table. I've seen the discussion between Barry Beck and Leo Boivin: Beck & Boivin played a similar style of hockey. I also agree with Sturminator that they both are in the same category. Both are great #4 defenceman, and you've got better value for Beck. However, I would still take Leo Boivin. Boivin is an HoF, perhaps the most punishing body checker of All-Time. A feared defenceman to play against, moreso than Beck. The AS voting doesn't paint the whole picture for Boivin, and too much have been told on him for me to justify his placement only by statistic. I understand view will be distorted greatly on Boivin, but I'm very happy to have him on the Nordiques, and pair him up with Frantisek Pospisil. God, Pospisil and Boivin waiting on you at defence ... you better have your head up!
Stapleton < Pospisil
Beck < Bovin (My personal bias, I wouldn't throw a tantrum if an '=' symbol was written there instead)
Yeah I think these two pairs are very close and will probably depend on individual voters. I think Stapleton and Beck have slight advantages, you think your guys do. I'm not sure who's right or wrong honestly, but you definitely do hold the physical advantage here.
3rd pairing:
Frank Patrick is an offensive defenceman that got overrated in the past, but he's still a great #5 defenceman. He's paired with Willie Mitchell, who carved himself a decent career as a stay-at-home defenceman. For the Nordiques, Frantisek Tikal is another defenceman hard to judge, but he brings an array of skills. It really depend on how you view his competition. Gilles Marotte is a fearless defensive player with bone crushing hits.
Patrick = Tikal
Mitchell < Marotte
Again, AC holds an edge on high-end talent, but the Nordiques in depth.
Eh, is it really an advantage in depth? Our 3-5 defense are basically coin flips. Marotte holds the advantage with scant all-star voting over Mitchell, but Mitchell's game was built to not receive all-star votes in the modern era. If Marotte > Mitchell is the biggest difference between our two bottom pairings, is that really an edge in depth?
----
Goaltending:
Well, for once!, the Nordiques holds a slight edge in goaltending. Tom Barrasso been able to show is worth come playoff time, while Chuck Rayner is no slouch and played well when given the chance. We had Barrasso #1 on our list and Chuck Rayner #2 for the longest of time. Eddie Giacomin is a far better goaltender than Ross Roach, but shouldn't play a factor.
Rayner < Barrasso (it's a slight edge)
Ross Roach < Giacomin (A good edge, but shouldn't play a factor)
They finished back to back on the HoH goaltender project (with Rayner ahead), but I think you can elevate Barrasso for his playoff performances. I think our approaches were pretty similar and we both landed excellent puckmovers in net. Neither guy should make or break this series.
----
Special Team:
Powerplay:
Well, both first unit owns a WOW factor. Extremely strong two units and the pieces seems to work well together. I would give a slight edge to the AC there, mostly because of Beliveau and Bathgate on the point. On the second unit though, we believe the Nordiques holds an edge.
I don't really see Quebec's first PP unit as that overwhelming to warrant just a slight advantage.
Beliveau's decently better than Messier, and PP scoring was his bread and butter. Leetch and Bathgate are also fairly better on the points than Seibert and Pitre. Bill Cook is probably your second best guy and better than Morris, but I don't see he and Messier as deadly as my unit.
I think the second units are close overall. I avoided it comparing second lines, but on the powerplay what makes Lindros better than Schriner? I already said I don't see what makes Smith better offensively than Larmer. Does Martin have a big advantage over Colville?
Are Pospisil and Stanfield better than Stapleton and Patrick?
Penalty Kill:
Those two teams holds average penalty kill, but decent enough to do the job. Kasatonov is excellent, so is Pospisil. Messier vs. Berenson, Tikal vs. Mitchell, Bridgman vs. Walter. I honestly have no clue who owns an edge, if any. Is it alright if I call them equal?
I'll take anyone saying their PK is equal to mine
------
Overall, it's going to be a really close series. One theme struck me as I was doing the comparision: high end skills vs. depth. the AC hold the edge for the 1st line and 1st pairing, but the Nordiques golds the edge for the second and third offensive line and a slight edge in term of defensive depth. A small edge for the goaltenders for the Nordiques, but the AC have the better coach. The special looks mighty equal, although the AC perhaps have a better end end on the PP, while the Nordiques more depth.
It's pretty much this: the AC high-end skills vs. the Nordiques depth. After already 13 games for the AC (12 for the Nordiques) & another very long series ahead of them: would you be more confident winning with an edge on high-end talents, or an edge in overall depth?
I really just don't see how there's a noticeable advantage in overall depth. Your biggest advantage on defense is our #6s. I have the better top pair and then our second pair is extremely close. Maybe you take third on Mitchell>Marotte, but Patrick and Tikal are comparable and leading the way.
I honestly believe I have the better second line too. You definitely have better offensive depth on the third line. In the least important of all, I have marginally better offense from the fourth who will be tasked to get on the cycle and hold the puck.
With goaltending being so close, I hope Pittsbugh's advantages are enough to pull out ahead in this tight series.
