knowing full well how their careers would go, or judging by how good they were as 18 year olds? (this makes a big difference for a prodigy like Lindros, or a relative unknown like Roy)
Savard - MacInnis
Lidstrom - Chelios
Park - Stevens
Kelly
Hasek
Hall
Brodeur
I don't think they would, unless Hasek really stood on his head. At first clance it appears as though your second team has an advantage due to checking and defensive forwards. However, I honestly think that if you mix up the lines a little bit Lindsay-Yzerman-Howe are as good of a defensive unit as Gainey-Clarke-Kurri. I think the first team wins in 5. Orr and Gretzky would have the puck for 50 minutes. And that all french line...
I'd love to see Horton on the second team though. Maybe ditch Savard, move Park up to play with MacInnis and then put Horton with Stevens! Imagine how terrified Morenz would be cutting across the blue line!
I think King Clancy would be a better choice than MacInnis for that second team.
Milt Schmidt or Ted Kennedy over Carbonneau? Much better offensive players and both great checkers in their own right.
Andy Bathgate over Forsberg? Move Sakic to the LW, Espo to the center and Bathgate to the RW - or slot in Boom Boom and make Andy the extra forward. Bathgate, in addition to being a superstar and Hart trophy winner, was also a vicious fighter.
Yeah, Tim Horton over Savard, and maybe sit Stevens or Park in favor of the highly underrated Red Kelly.
I think King Clancy would be a better choice than MacInnis for that second team.
Milt Schmidt or Ted Kennedy over Carbonneau? Much better offensive players and both great checkers in their own right.
Andy Bathgate over Forsberg? Move Sakic to the LW, Espo to the center and Bathgate to the RW - or slot in Boom Boom and make Andy the extra forward. Bathgate, in addition to being a superstar and Hart trophy winner, was also a vicious fighter.
Yeah, Tim Horton over Savard, and maybe sit Stevens or Park in favor of the highly underrated Red Kelly.
I think that what Van was trying to do was make a team of playoff warriors and guys who would do whatever it takes to win. Van knows his hockey, and I don't think he would consider Carbo a better all around player than Teeder or Schmidt. I think he was trying to make a point about how a team with tons of heart could beat a more talented team, especially in a 7 games series. Forsberg is one of those type of guys. Over 82 games I might take Bathgate over Forsberg, but come playoff time it's a different story.
My point is that the top players at each position wouldn't necessary combine 20+ to make the best team to win in the playoffs.
Of course the first team I mention is full of higher ranked players in the history of the game, but when I imagine a 7-game playoff series, I see them as beatable.
Trottier, Forsberg, Clarke, Carbonneau, MacInnis, Chelios, Stevens, Hasek may not make the roster of the best-players-assembled roster but that damn well feels wrong when you imagine them on top of their game doing what they do, especially come playoff time (when it matters).
