I've always liked your analysis. I respect your opinion.
My rebuttal.
1) I agree that i do no have any players remotely close to Kovalchuk skills or Niedermayer and i even agree with Legace being better than Gerber. It does not hide the fact that your centre position is weak. Look the last ten cup winning teams and they're all strong in the centre position and Arnott/Umberger versus Sakic/Briere. I did not built my team with only two players in mind. Granted if Kovalchuk or Niedermayer get injured, who is going to carry your team. If Sakic or Briere get injured, i have filpulla or Turris to pick up the slack. My team overall is just better offensively and defensively and i don't rely on two lines to give me the bulk of the scoring. I really think you underestimate how good Sakic is.
1) Not at all, you are just under-estimating how good Arnott and Umberger are. Both notched over 50+ points last year. They may not be a great group, but they are also more than just "solid".
2) If Kovalchuk gets injured I have Hejduk, Prospal, Gionta and Shanny who can pick up the slack. I also have a 4th line that combined for 38 goals last year, all of which can easily step up to a higher line.
If Neid's gets injured, I still have Blake, Boynton, O'Brien and Preissing; all of which are capable of playing top 4 roles.
3) I have 4 lines that are capable of scoring, and my guys are more established than yours.
2) "I have 6 20+ goal scorers on my team(Kovalchuk, Prospal, Hejduk, Arnott, Shanny, Gionta); you had 4(Briere, Perry, Radulov, Kostitsyn)."
You make it seem like Sakic can't score 20 goals at will. Granted you picked guys that happened to have a career years or played on teams that produced well offensively. I took a risk in some of guys (Pouliot or Tomas Fleischmann) But granted with the type of team that i have, i dont need to rely on two or three guys for the bulk of the scoring. Stats aside, if Sakic was healthy and produced the way he's been producing consistently, you would not be this harsh. Also, i happen to like my young fast team. "And i love how your main arguement is all about the past. My players accomplish this so in return theyre going to be better than your team." I think you fail to also project players. Filpulla is only getting better and so is Byfuglien and Turris. And yes i understand that were only going by what the players did last year but you can throw all the stats you want, it doesnt mean your going to win. Some of my players have potential and your players really dont. Maybe Fehr but even Fleischmann is ahead of him.
1) "maybe Fehr?"
- You need to go ask Boston fans about Krejci. I happen to know a lot of them that feel that Krecji is Savard's eventual replacement on the top line.
-What is Umberger, chopped liver? He just notched 50 points as Philly's #3 center and has never played with overly good wingers. Given his size and skill, I could easily see him getting to the 60-70+ point range in Columbus, not to mention the wingers I've given him.
2) I can honestly say that I would be every bit as "harsh" if Sakic were healthy. Even with Sakic, you are a small, soft team that puts far to much stock in the "potential" of players rather than their actual, proven ability. I'd liken you to the Islanders or Coyotes who always think their young forwards are good enough to compete with the upper tier teams in the league. I'm not going to buy into the hype of your team until some of those young kids prove they aren't "flash in the pan" types.
3) The only forward on my team that doesn't have at least 3-5 more very good years in him is Shanny(and he'll be replaced with Stewart in time). My average age right now is 29 and I've set up a mix of age groups on the team.
3) Well just because Tallinder Hainsey and Roszival are underappreciated and underrated does not mean theyre not capable defensemans. In Buffalo, Tallinder is the number one defenseman and since were talking about the past, He was one of the biggest reason why Buffalo played the Run and Gun system. He was playing 20+ plus minutes. Roszival is also the number 1 defenseman in NYR and so was Hainsey. Just because they're not talked about all the time, does not mean they're not good players. With my team, i dont need a pp quarterback. My forwards can step in, i can use Byfuglien as a defenseman if i want to. I have versatility, Granted if one of my guys get injured, i can afford that with my depth. You cant say that about yours! And you know that.
I absolutely CAN say that about mine.
Blake and Neid's were both #1 D men on their teams.
Boynton, Preissing, and O'Brien were all top 4 D men on their respective teams.
My D men are all capable of handling top 4 minutes, with the exception of Lashoff(and I'm not done with my defense).
4) Doesnt mean jack sh*it. Anaheim's players had more stanley cups than Dallas' players and who eliminated them. Carolina's players had less stanley cups but they still won and so did tampa. And yes i understand that Detroit had way more stanley cups but they were not going to get beat by Pittsburgh. It really does not matter who has more Stanley Cups but rather if your team is built to use those experiences.
And mine is.
My team is gritty, extremely good offensively, extremely good defensively and doesn't key on any one player.
Yes, I have a few Star players; but they accent my team rather than define it.
My team is built for the PO's. I'll gladly take my chances against anybody.
I'm not knocking your team at all. And If Scott Niedermayer gets back to his old ways, your D is that much better but you can't throw stats and hopefully by doing that it justifies your claim. I see myself addressing my weakness but i dont see you doing that at all. Your are pretty bias but then again who isnt. I really wish i had Garon though damm you Gerber!
My weakness are not in the players (Legace is my weak link and I'll GLADLY live with that). It is in their cost. I've spent a lot to get my team, and my talent level reflects that.