| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| umteman |
Posted - 02/17/2017 : 11:54:26
This article does a side by side comparison and reaches and arguable conclusion, one that I don't quite agree with, though some good points are made.
Personally I disregard the earlier Montreal dynasties as the rules at the time gave them exclusive rights to all players from that Province. As well, as pointed out in the article, the early dynasties didn't have to deal with the rigors of transcontinental travel or as many teams to compete against. While fewer teams may have provided a different difficulty as talent was not spread as thin the post season path to the cup was certainly not as rigorous.
In the end I disagree with the authors conclusion and pick the 1980's Oilers as the #1 NHL dynasty. The club that ended the reign of the mighty Islanders and included so many hall of famers that, partly due to roster changes over the years, I can't even name them all, but just for a sampling; Wayne Gretzky who many claim and with a strong case to be the best ever, Mark Messier the best all around player I can recall, Paul Coffey the best puck moving D-man I can recall.
http://thehockeywriters.com/the-great-nhl-dynasties/
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?" |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| leigh |
Posted - 02/27/2017 : 16:38:15
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I agree with your winner!
For me though, the Isles just edge out the Oilers 83-90 dynasty . . . which just edges out the 75-79 Canadiens dynasty.
I knew I always liked you Slozo. You're obviously very intelligent...for a Leaf fan.  |
| n/a |
Posted - 02/27/2017 : 10:18:55
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Ok this is something I've debated with friends for years. I firmly believe that you can NOT count the old dynasties prior to the 67 expansion. I mean, there were 6 or less teams from 1917 to 1966. Your odds for winning the championship were pretty good, and the best anyone could do was 5 cups in 5 years? I'm surprised that there weren't longer streaks, like double! Ok maybe I'm exaggerating that point, but you get my meaning; there were 6 teams and they had 50 years of hockey to tear it up.
So using this premise I'm eliminating the following 6 "dynasty" teams:
1) 1919-27 Ottawa Senators (4 Cups in 8 years)
2) 1946-51 Toronto Maple Leafs (4 Cups in 5 years)
3) 1949-55 Detroit Red Wings (4 Cups in 6 years)
4) 1955-60 Montreal Canadiens (5 Cups in 5 years - maybe the only contender from this era)
5) 1961-67 Toronto Maple Leafs (4 Cups in 6 years)
6) 1964-69 Montreal Canadiens (4 Cups in 5 years)
Note that even though the 64-69 Montreal Canadiens were overlapping the expansion era they were firmly placed well into the original 6 timeline, and only had back to back championships at best in that time, so they're out.
So that leaves the following teams:
1975-79 Montreal Canadiens (4 Cups in 4 years) -
1979-83 New York Islanders (4 Cups in 4 years)
1983-90 Edmonton Oilers (5 Cups in 7 years)
1996-08 Detroit Red Wings (4 Cups in 11 years)
Side note: It's crazy to think that over 16 years from 1975 to 1990 the league was essentially dominated by only 3 teams (over that time there were 17 to 21 teams in any given year)
Right off the top I'm going to remove the 96-08 Red Wings. The most championships they had in a row was 2. And while 4 cups in 11 years in the modern era is obviously impressive, it's not a dynasty by my standards. Given the streaks of the remaining three competitors I would think I'd have few people arguing with me on this. By the way a streak of 3 in a row is the minimum standard, in my opinion, for a dynasty.
By the same logic I'm going to remove the 83-90 Oilers. They were definitely one of the dominant teams in history, and possibly the most exciting team I've ever had the joy of watching, but the best they could muster were back to back championships. A dynasty means that you were the number one team and you could sustain it over a period of time. If you related in in terms of a nation, it means that you gained power and RULED for an extended period of time without conceding your control or yoyo-ing your absolute victory. Repeat championships are rare and amazing, but it's no dynasty (sorry Oiler fans)
That leaves me with the following 2 teams:
1975-79 Montreal Canadiens (4 Cups in 4 years)
1979-83 New York Islanders (4 Cups in 4 years)
These two teams ascended to the top and didn't give it up to anyone for 4 straight seasons - pure dominance in the face of fierce competition!
But I have to make a choice....so in my opinion the greatest dynasty in NHL history is....drum roll please.....
1979-83 New York Islanders (4 Cups in 4 years)
Between my final two teams, the main reasons I'm giving this to them is:
1) they are the team to dethrone the previous dynasty, the 1975-79 Montreal Canadiens, and,
2) they played in the Stanley cup finals in the 5th year of their dynasty only to lose to the Oilers. Although they were beat pretty handily by the Oilers in the finals they came relatively close to a 5th championship. Whereas the 1975-79 Montreal Canadiens didn't compete in the finals of either shoulder season of their dynasty.
Sorry for the long-ass post, but I was right into it,  . There might be some holes in my logic but I feel pretty good about my selection.
Thoughts?
I agree with your winner!
For me though, the Isles just edge out the Oilers 83-90 dynasty . . . which just edges out the 75-79 Canadiens dynasty.
Don't Leaf me hanging, Buds! |
| leigh |
Posted - 02/24/2017 : 13:38:13
I remember watching that live on CBC, Alex. Devastating moment!
A good point indeed, but there are always "woulda, coulda, shoulda's" in hockey. As my dad used to say "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/22/2017 : 15:42:02
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
...btw. I didn't read the hockey writers article until after I did my research - I only pulled their list. I have to say they put some good arguments forward for the 75-79 Habs but I still stick with my argument of them coming second.
I think the article got it right! One thing I don't think anyone has touched on mind you is 1986. If not for the Steve Smith brain fart, the Oilers quite likely would have won a 5th straight!!! The Oilers finished ahead of the Habs (who won the Cup that season) by 32 points in the regular season!!! A betting man would say the Oilers, if not for the Steve Smith gaffe, would have been cup champs that year!
That's the reason I had the toss up between the Habs of the 70's and the Oilers of the 80's with the Isles just slightly behind them both! |
| leigh |
Posted - 02/22/2017 : 09:31:24
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Maybe not a true Dynasty but the early 90`s Pens werent too shabby either. Who knows if not for Lemieuxs health ............... M.Lemieus , J.Jagr , R.Francis , K.Stevens , J.Mullens , B.Trottier , R.Tocchet , M.Recchi , P.Coffey , L.Murphy , M.Straka , the 2 Samuelssons......this team could pretty much play hockey with any team in league history.
Agreed Duke, if Lemieux had been able to stay healthy, who knows? Also when they drafted Crosby and Lemieux was still playing, can you imagine those two had a few seasons together? |
| The Duke |
Posted - 02/21/2017 : 16:07:57
Maybe not a true Dynasty but the early 90`s Pens werent too shabby either. Who knows if not for Lemieuxs health ............... M.Lemieus , J.Jagr , R.Francis , K.Stevens , J.Mullens , B.Trottier , R.Tocchet , M.Recchi , P.Coffey , L.Murphy , M.Straka , the 2 Samuelssons......this team could pretty much play hockey with any team in league history. |
| leigh |
Posted - 02/20/2017 : 13:49:08
...btw. I didn't read the hockey writers article until after I did my research - I only pulled their list. I have to say they put some good arguments forward for the 75-79 Habs but I still stick with my argument of them coming second. |
| leigh |
Posted - 02/20/2017 : 12:32:09
Ok this is something I've debated with friends for years. I firmly believe that you can NOT count the old dynasties prior to the 67 expansion. I mean, there were 6 or less teams from 1917 to 1966. Your odds for winning the championship were pretty good, and the best anyone could do was 5 cups in 5 years? I'm surprised that there weren't longer streaks, like double! Ok maybe I'm exaggerating that point, but you get my meaning; there were 6 teams and they had 50 years of hockey to tear it up.
So using this premise I'm eliminating the following 6 "dynasty" teams:
1) 1919-27 Ottawa Senators (4 Cups in 8 years)
2) 1946-51 Toronto Maple Leafs (4 Cups in 5 years)
3) 1949-55 Detroit Red Wings (4 Cups in 6 years)
4) 1955-60 Montreal Canadiens (5 Cups in 5 years - maybe the only contender from this era)
5) 1961-67 Toronto Maple Leafs (4 Cups in 6 years)
6) 1964-69 Montreal Canadiens (4 Cups in 5 years)
Note that even though the 64-69 Montreal Canadiens were overlapping the expansion era they were firmly placed well into the original 6 timeline, and only had back to back championships at best in that time, so they're out.
So that leaves the following teams:
1975-79 Montreal Canadiens (4 Cups in 4 years) -
1979-83 New York Islanders (4 Cups in 4 years)
1983-90 Edmonton Oilers (5 Cups in 7 years)
1996-08 Detroit Red Wings (4 Cups in 11 years)
Side note: It's crazy to think that over 16 years from 1975 to 1990 the league was essentially dominated by only 3 teams (over that time there were 17 to 21 teams in any given year)
Right off the top I'm going to remove the 96-08 Red Wings. The most championships they had in a row was 2. And while 4 cups in 11 years in the modern era is obviously impressive, it's not a dynasty by my standards. Given the streaks of the remaining three competitors I would think I'd have few people arguing with me on this. By the way a streak of 3 in a row is the minimum standard, in my opinion, for a dynasty.
By the same logic I'm going to remove the 83-90 Oilers. They were definitely one of the dominant teams in history, and possibly the most exciting team I've ever had the joy of watching, but the best they could muster were back to back championships. A dynasty means that you were the number one team and you could sustain it over a period of time. If you related in in terms of a nation, it means that you gained power and RULED for an extended period of time without conceding your control or yoyo-ing your absolute victory. Repeat championships are rare and amazing, but it's no dynasty (sorry Oiler fans)
That leaves me with the following 2 teams:
1975-79 Montreal Canadiens (4 Cups in 4 years)
1979-83 New York Islanders (4 Cups in 4 years)
These two teams ascended to the top and didn't give it up to anyone for 4 straight seasons - pure dominance in the face of fierce competition!
But I have to make a choice....so in my opinion the greatest dynasty in NHL history is....drum roll please.....
1979-83 New York Islanders (4 Cups in 4 years)
Between my final two teams, the main reasons I'm giving this to them is:
1) they are the team to dethrone the previous dynasty, the 1975-79 Montreal Canadiens, and,
2) they played in the Stanley cup finals in the 5th year of their dynasty only to lose to the Oilers. Although they were beat pretty handily by the Oilers in the finals they came relatively close to a 5th championship. Whereas the 1975-79 Montreal Canadiens didn't compete in the finals of either shoulder season of their dynasty.
Sorry for the long-ass post, but I was right into it, . There might be some holes in my logic but I feel pretty good about my selection.
Thoughts?
|
| umteman |
Posted - 02/20/2017 : 09:15:00
I agree that Dryden vs. Fuhr is clear cut, but Fuhr did have a way of coming up big in the big games!
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?" |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 02/20/2017 : 08:23:14
Great article! And of course, like many of this sort comparing era's, it's extremely debatable. I actually don't have a problem with the winner (Habs), albeit I'm a bit biased having grown up with them as one of my favorite teams (along with Vancouver). At the same time, because of the Oilers dominance and embarrassing the Canucks on far too many occasions, I hated them! Lol. Always respected how good they were but never cheered for them!
It's a coin flip really. Both were extremely good and full of star power. Having Gretzky makes me lean towards the Oilers, but in reality, in a team game, the Habs were better defensively and especially in goal. Sure, Coffey was great, but lets face it, he was basically another forward. With Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, Serge Savard, etc, the Habs D was pretty stellar! Dryden vs Fuhr is no contest! The 76/77 team lost just 8 regular season games! 8! Add in the playoffs and they lost just 2 more for a total of 10!!! That's pretty impressive.
Habs of the 70's, Oilers of the 80's and Isles of the 80's are my top 3. They're all pretty close though! |
| umteman |
Posted - 02/18/2017 : 11:18:00
And having given it a little more thought that dynasty also included hall of famers Grant Fuhr, Jari Kurri, and Glenn Anderson and I am probably still missing a couple.
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?" |
| The Duke |
Posted - 02/18/2017 : 10:37:29
I agree fully that the 80`s Oilers were the best team ive ever seen play the game. Plus the other dynasties prob kept their top star till the end, remember Gretzky left .....and still in his prime at the time of departure.
The Oilers lost in the cup final 0f 1983......won another cup in 1990......thats a solid team for a string of 8 years.
They certainly played the game in another speed. |
|
|
