darkbrew*
Guest
The problem with people comparing this team to the 2009 team is that 2009 team was more a "catching lightning in a bottle" team than a "this looks like a dynasty" team.
Yes, you need luck to win the Cup. So every team that's won has, at some point, got a lucky bounce or a lucky break. But that 2009 team is arguably the weakest "on paper" Stanley Cup champion of the past decade. It took *both* Crosby and Malkin going into God-mode, as well as ridiculous contributions from a guy like Max Talbot (who you couldn't have predicted or planned for) to win it.
So my point being, you really shouldn't look at that roster and say, "we're as good as that team" if you're trying to build a Cup champion. Because I don't think that blueprint will ever win you a Cup again. Too much stuff has to go right, that otherwise is unlikely, for it to happen.
I think most people would disagree with you about that team... that team had a great third line, one area where this team was lacking as well as a shutdown pair that could actually shutdown people.
At worst they were an average cup winner. The current team just needed more guys like Talbot that actually had some skill, and just better D/team D. Plus you know Fleury of 2009 would be nice