I'm referring to the Hasek who was seen laying on his back for all of the ducks net front goals that series. I think Osgood, who got injured the year before due to under use, should have started more than 21 games to be a viable option to have in tandem with an aging goalie. Osgood had a .907 sv pct in 21 games that year. I disagree that Hasek played brilliantly in those playoffs, and I don't think he was a true no.1 at that point in his career, just like Legace was not a true no.1 the year before.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=2430729
There's a story citing a couple dramatic comments from Legace before and after the playoffs. There were plenty of indications in the press going into the playoffs that Legace and the team weren't sold on the idea of him being number 1 going into the playoffs. I remember Yzerman possibly hinting that another plan should be in place.
Well if you are going to address it, which you have, you may as well add something meaningful. Someone else has already said that selling out for the first goal is always the right strategy, which is a fine opinion to have. Obviously I disagree, and as I was watching in 09 I disagreed and looking back still feel like it was a major miscalculation based on emotion and not on logic. I stand by the points I've made regarding the importance of the first goal in that game.
I figured I'd lend support to those looking back thinking we could've won more with the team we had. It's interesting to think about. Defending a brief argument against lazy hyperbole is less interesting!
And for the last part, Holland has done a terrible job integrating the new head coach into managements style. But the coach plays a HUGE role in the development of a roster.