I agree that the talent pool is more diluted than it used to be which has led to many teams feeling that they have to play an ultra-defensive style of hockey in order to win.
Although, I think the defensive hockey we see now is also just a phase. The NHL in the 50's, 60's, and 70's wasn't nearly as offensive as it was in the 80's. I think the trend towards more defensive hockey started to emerge when New Jersey won the Cup in 1995. Since then, the only teams that have won are NJ, Detroit, Colorado, and Dallas one year. NJ is the one team that won without a hall of fame roster. So the message is, if you want to win, either you have a huge budget and buy the Cup, or you play New Jersey style defense. In the 80's the whole financial thing wasn't an issue, I mean, the team with the most stars was tiny little Edmonton. The successful teams back then were the Islanders with Bossy, Gilles, Trottier etc... the Oilers with Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey etc...the Penguins with Lemieux, Jagr, Stevens, Francis, Coffey etc...These were all teams that built up a very talented roster and played exciting hockey. In turn, this is what other teams tried to emulate. It was NJ that first proved you could win without an all-star lineup if you just bored the other team to death.
The solution? A decent CBA that gives every team an equal shot at having the most talented roster and a few cup wins by a team built from scratch (not just by signing every free agent on the market) that plays interesting hockey. Ottawa built a talented team pretty much from scratch and Muckler says he wants a new coach that will encourage more offence so Ottawa sounds like the best fit right now.