| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 10:58:35
Hi All,
I am enjoying this site immensely and thought I would try a post. My question is which Dynast team is, in your opinion the best, and please provide some insight as to why you fell that way.
Thanks and have fun with it. |
| 37 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest7601 |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 21:20:29
just to clerify a fact that the leafs were the first dynasty in the original 6 era. thats 3 cups in a row. and they also would be the biggest come back being down 3-0 in a series vs. detriot and winning 4 straight games to win the cup. quite an accomplishment in any era. |
| Guest5271 |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 17:50:53
The 80s Oilers were probably the best teams ever. They scored tons of goals, and won 5 cups. Also, the only reason the team faltered later was because all of the good players fled to the US for money. If they had the dynasty team for 10-15 years, they would have won 10-15 cups. |
| Guest2247 |
Posted - 03/21/2010 : 15:10:54
back in the fifties team players basically stayed together for a long time. the oilers won their 5 cups with diffrent players coming and going and with THREE diffrent starting goalies, so dont give me that what if dryden crap...only for the fluke goal by steve smith in 1986, AND if gretzky had of stayed, the oilers were good enough to win 7 concecutive stanley cups.....argueably 84-85-86-87-88-89-and 90...could have easily happened.....not an oilers fan by the way.....just making a point. i watched the 70`s bruins / 70`s canadians / 80`s islanders and the 80`s oilers..NOBODY and i mean NOBODY played hockey like the 80`s OLIERS. opposing players were even in awe of their pre-game practice they were so great. |
| shazariahl |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 20:59:37
That's what I figure too; but many of the changes have nothing to do with the quality of the players. For example, goal equipment being much larger has nothing to do with players becoming more skilled, its just better equipment.
I do think the average player in the league now is better than 20-30 years ago, but I honestly believe the top players today aren't as good as say Gretzky or Lemieux were in the 80's/90's. My logic is thus:
just as an example, in 2005-6 Jagr had 123 pts. Ovechkin had 106. The next season, Jagr had 96, Ovechkin had 92. These were the only two seasons they played in the league at the same time. Admittedly, AO was young and just entering the league, but Jagr was also old and just getting ready to leave the league. But if a young AO can't outscore an old Jagr, and Prime Jagr wasn't as good as Lemieux, and Lemieux (IMO) wasn't as good as Prime Gretzky, then I can't believe that AO is better than Gretzky. I don't care how much the game has changed or evolved - many of those changes are simple rule changes or equipment changes that have nothing to do with player skill. The fact is that if AO couldn't outscore Jagr near the end of Jagr's career, then he obviously isn't better than the dominant players who were proven to be better than Jagr (such as Gretzky and Lemieux).
When we look at things like dominance ratios to compare across different eras, we find much the same thing, with Gretzky being FAR more dominant than AO or Crosby or Malkin, or anyone else really. This indicates to me that none of the current "big 3" are at the level of their predecessors. And if they aren't at that level, then I begin to think comparisons against players like Lafleur aren't so crazy afterall. None of the big 3 have reached the level of domination that Lafleur had during his prime years (though of course Lafleur wasn't particularly great outside of those 5 or 6 seasons). I think Ovechkin has the potential to be one of the top 10 forwards of all time; but he is simply not there yet. He doesn't have the body of work, the awards, or the level of domination that many others had. It wasn't that long ago Jagr put up 123 points; a mark AO, Malkin or Crosby have yet to meet (though at least Crosby was close).
This idea that players are automatically better just because the game has "changed" or advanced or because they are younger isn't necessarily true. Yes, nutrition and training have improved, and the level of the average player in the league has gotten better. But people act like players today have "evolved" into an entirely different species than people who played even 10 or 15 years ago. It simply isn't true.
Another great example would be Jerry Rice from football, who dominated the league for 20 years. He was better than guys like TO and Randy Moss, who have gone on to dominate the league ever since he retired. But even still, nearing the end of their own careers, they are considered some of the best recievers in the NFL.
It was only 2 years ago Moss broke Rice's record for single season TD receptions (though Rice set that in a 12 game strike-shortened season, and it took Moss 16 games to break it). But again; we have a dominant player from the 80's who was clearly better than the best players who came after him. Yet those players have proven to be as good or better than the next generation since.
So to try and wrap things up: if Player A is better than Player B, and Player B is as good or better than Player C, then obviously Player C can't be somehow retroactively better than Player A.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 14:54:31
My guess is he's talking about how the game has changed, with regards to rules, equipment, speed, size, etc? So tough to compare teams and players from different eras really! |
| shazariahl |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 13:09:07
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6840
i will say 70s Canadians for the best chance of winning but the worst team in the NHL can destroy them right now.
What makes you say that, just conditioning in general? Or do you mean because the 70's Habs are all like 60 years old now? Cause hopefully you have something a little deeper in mind than that. Or are you going by the idea that everyone in the league today is better than everyone who played before? Just curious as to what you are trying to say with this comment.
IMO the 70s canadians were one of the greatest teams in history; I hope you aren't saying that in their primes they wouldn't be better than say... the current Oilers team (sigh).
|
| Guest6840 |
Posted - 03/20/2010 : 12:35:39
i will say 70s Canadians for the best chance of winning but the worst team in the NHL can destroy them right now. |
| umteman |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 11:33:17
Of those I am old enough to remember the 80's oilers and the late 70's early 80's Islanders were the best. While I am too young (in fact wasn't born yet) to remember the 50's Habs team I think it should be pointed out that the league rules at that time gave them exclusive rights to all players from that Province.
Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?" |
| Guest8556 |
Posted - 11/17/2009 : 21:17:01
The Habs of the 50's were easily the top dynasty with 5 cups in a row, they could have won 8 in a row if they won the 7th game of the finals in 1954 and 1955, they won the cup in 1953.
What about the Habs of the 60's?, which Jean Beliveau refers to as the "Forgotten Dynasty", they did what the Oiler's did in the 80's, winning 5 cups in 7 years, 1964, 65, 68,69, 71 (the 71 team was predominantly the 60's team). Had they not been upset by Leafs in 1967 they could have won 5 in a row. Yet they are rarely mentioned when talking about hockey dynasties, a bloody shame. |
| Guest0482 |
Posted - 03/19/2009 : 08:57:22
current wings |
| Guest8801 |
Posted - 03/19/2009 : 00:52:24
While not quite at the same level as some of these others, there was a wings dynasty or pseudo-dynasty at least. They won the President's Trophy 7 straight years, and captured 4 cups in that 7 year span. I realize that's 1 less than the oilers did it in, plus the Oilers were an expansion team, and there were more teams in the league to compete against. But still... would people consider 4 in 7 a dynasty, given that they also won 7 straight President's Trophy's?
|
| WhalersForever8711 |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 07:04:57
I picked the Oilers. Although i gotta give my props to the Habs from 56-60 and to the Islanders of the early 80's.
To me, the Canadiens are a much better dynasty than the Yankees of baseball. Although I am not a basketball fan, the only team that beats these dynasties, are the Celtics that won 8 straight. To me the Oilers were better, because of the players and the massive amounts of Goals scored at the end of a 82 game regular season. And Grant Fuhr was a great netminder for those boys in Edmonton, as well as Ranford in 90. |
| J-Dog |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 17:31:29
Sorry, that last one was me, I couldn't log in before I posted... please don't beat me up.  |
| Guest9004 |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 17:29:33
Not to change the list of teams there, they are all deserving of the best teams in their respective times. But wouldn't the Red Wings almost qualify? I know they have not been as dominant as these teams but they do have 4 cups in 11 years. I always thought a dynasty was domination over a certain amount of time, actually I thought it was ten years, and they have been good for awhile now. Take into account though that there is 1 lockout year, and teams have become so much more competitive and closely matched.
So we have 4 cups in 10 years (-1 for lockout) and 8 division championships in that time. Also included would be 4 presidents trophies. I know cups and season play are different beasts altogether but I would still call them pretty dominant, especially in a league that is now under a salary cap, so teams like the Oilers in the 80's and all the others can't be formed again.
I just thought they should have a little recognition. But I do agree they are not really comparable to these teams. To stay on topic, I think the 50's Habs are number 1, Oilers no.2 and 70's Habs #3. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 16:48:04
I don't think Edmonton was as dominant as some make them out to be. There were teams that could compete with them and did. In 87 Philly took them to 7 games in the final. During the regular season Philly won their matchups 2 games to 1.
The season before Calgary beat them in 7 games in the first round of playoffs.
In contrast the 70's Habs were never taken to more than 6 games. 2 sweeps, a 4-1 and a 4-2. |
| Porkchop73 |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 13:57:46
We will never see league domination again like we did with 70's Habs. All do credit to Habs of the 50's but I think the 70's Habs dominated the entire league for more then half the decade. Although they won the cup 5 times, they should have won it 7. And just think what would have been if Dryden kept going! |
| Guest4985 |
Posted - 11/09/2008 : 13:32:48
OK. I'm a Habs fan of the 70's so I'll declare my bias right off. But can anyone say that any team has ever dominated the league, before or since, the way the Habs did in the 70's? Will we ever see a team again lose only 8 times in an 80 game season the way the Habs did in 76-77? And they had quite a few seasons with losses in the low double digits. I know that cup wins are an important stat in rating dynasties, and the Habs rival most dynasties in that department, but no one else has dominated the entire league for so long as the 70's Habs. |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 15:47:28
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To put that into perspective for those who did not see the 80's Oilers, at the prime, the Oilers rostered arguable 6 of the top ten players in the world in Gretzky, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey, Messier, and Fuhr. Compare that to today would be a team including Crosby, Lecavalier, Iginla, Ovechkin, Lidstrom, and Luongo. Would it even be fair to the rest of the league??? Just like it wasn't fair through the 80's!!
This is a brilliant comparison - it truly puts things into perspective about that roster. It is also a great way to open the eyes of some of the kids these days in a manner that they can relate to. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 15:24:22
As much as Andy and I love to fight, I do (*partially) agree with a number of things his said. Do the Oilers win Cups in the 80's without Gretzky? Definately. Were Messier, Coffey, Kurri, and Anderson a bunch of bums without Gretzky?? Absolutely not.
However, I have to say that most people view that Gretkzy was the God and the other were on the coat tales. Sure, maybe guys like Mike Krushelnyski, Kevin McClelland, and Mark Napier rode on coat tales. But the Big 5 (Gretzky, Kurri, Anderson, Messier, and Coffey) were All World Talents on their own and together were that much better.
To put that into perspective for those who did not see the 80's Oilers, at the prime, the Oilers rostered arguable 6 of the top ten players in the world in Gretzky, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey, Messier, and Fuhr. Compare that to today would be a team including Crosby, Lecavalier, Iginla, Ovechkin, Lidstrom, and Luongo. Would it even be fair to the rest of the league??? Just like it wasn't fair through the 80's!!
They definately would have had success apart (as many of them did after the Firewagon 80's in Edmonton), but I stand firm that they would have not been as successful if they were not ALL together.
Gretkzy is still the greatest of them all
(Had to get that one in, Hey Willus!) |
| andyhack |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 15:13:09
But I was talking about the late '70s Habs. My best guess is that they still would have had a fairly good chance at the first two Cups without Lafleur, but that the Cups in '78 and '79 might not have happened without him.
Looking at the Bruins without Orr, my guess is that particularly in '72 they would have lost out on the Cup to a very good Rangers team that year (one of the better losing finalists ever). Maybe the one in '70 could have happened without Orr. Hard to say. Like all the players mentioned, Orr improved all the guys around him. Still, looking at the competition that year, a Cup without Orr does seem a little more possible than in '72 (I think 70's version of the Rangers was a step down from '72's version maybe).
The Isles one is tricky. As great as Trotts was, the Isles without Trotts somehow still seem extremely strong to me, with a tremendous defenceman and the best natural scorer and a great supporting cast. On the other hand, Trotts was such a force. My guess is that like the Habs, they still would have won two Cups though.
Which brings us to the Oilers. This one seems the easiest to me. I think a Gretzky-less Oilers team would have won at least 2 and maybe even 3 of the 4 Cups that Wayne was a part of from '84 TO '88. Although I have absolutely no argument with anyone who goes on (and ON) about Wayne's contribution to that team, I think there is a bit of a myth that he "made" Coffey, Messier, Anderson, Kurri. He helped them yes, but there is a difference between Gretzky helping a talented guy like Jarri Kurri or an amazingly gifted skater like Paul Coffey, and Orr helping a talented, but aging, guy like Johhny Bucyk, or a tough as nails muck it up every chance you get guy like Wayne Cashman. The Oilers were an amazingly talented, strong and YOUNG hockey team even without Wayne. More importantly, they still had arguably another "in the top 5 ever" guy leading the way in Messier. Their team was also built for the times. I think maybe the first Cup gets delayed a year without Wayne (even that is questionable as Mark led the way against the Isles in the finals that year - as I like to point out ), but after that I think they have a good chance of taking all their Cups even if Wayne never existed.
Edit - this is not meant as a knock on Wayne - just trying to answer my own question and the above is what I came up with |
| Guest9692 |
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 07:06:09
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
1970 Bruins without Orr
Late 70s Habs without Lafleur
Early 80s Isles without Trottier
80s Oilers without Mess... ahhh, ok without Gretzky 
I wouldn't take out Guy. Although the was the best forward. The glue that held it all together was the D. Take out one of the big 3 and you would put a world of hurt on them, moreso than taking out Guy. If I had a choice, I would take out Savard at that time.
That would mean Lapointe, Robinson and Laperierre would have to split up the rotation. Robinson was a yungin' back then. Lapointe was coming into his prime and Laperierre was just at the end of his peak. Savard at 27 in '74 was a force on that blue line. Almost like a deck of cards, the team would fall. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 07/27/2008 : 17:16:04
quote:
Originally posted by hockster
Its gotta be the Canadiens with the Richards
No doubt about it
motor city is going back to back this year,,, something tells me we have a new dynasty!!
Pasty |
| hockster |
Posted - 07/05/2008 : 12:31:28
Its gotta be the Canadiens with the Richards
No doubt about it |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/29/2008 : 09:59:20
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
For some reason I'm thinking about this while watching tennis this morning (which indicates how exciting the tennis is maybe ).
And I started thinking - what would have happened if each of these great teams, hypothetically that is , would not have had their best player? In the Isles case this player is probably the most disputable, but let's say it is Trottier. So you have the following:
1970 Bruins without Orr
Late 70s Habs without Lafleur
Early 80s Isles without Trottier
80s Oilers without Mess... ahhh, ok without Gretzky
All you hypothetical lovers out there, and I know you are there, what do you think? Which of these teams does the best? Which ones do all right, Cup-wise that is? And which goes absolutely Cupless without their Number 1 star?
Edit - And for the purpose of this question, let's assume these players just weren't born - so they weren't playing for competing teams at the time
Back to Tommy Haas (I wonder if he realizes he has weird spelling to his last name)
I don't know enough of the earlier teams to discuss, but I would confidently say that with Gretzky or Messier, the Oilers would have still won a number of Cups through the 80's. One of them removed. If neither Gretzky or Messier were on the team, I would think that a one or two would have been probibly, but not much more than that.
Although Coffey, Fuhr, Kurri, and soon to be Anderson are all HOFer's, it was Gretzky and Messier that drove that team. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 06/28/2008 : 08:07:51
For some reason I'm thinking about this while watching tennis this morning (which indicates how exciting the tennis is maybe ).
And I started thinking - what would have happened if each of these great teams, hypothetically that is, would not have had their best player? In the Isles case this player is probably the most disputable, but let's say it is Trottier. So you have the following:
1970 Bruins without Orr
Late 70s Habs without Lafleur
Early 80s Isles without Trottier
80s Oilers without Mess... ahhh, ok without Gretzky
All you hypothetical lovers out there, and I know you are there, what do you think? Which of these teams does the best? Which ones do all right, Cup-wise that is? And which goes absolutely Cupless without their Number 1 star?
Edit - And for the purpose of this question, let's assume these players just weren't born - so they weren't playing for competing teams at the time
Back to Tommy Haas (I wonder if he realizes he has weird spelling to his last name) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/19/2008 : 15:01:18
I agree that coming back after winning a string of Cups to win another may hurt a team in the Dynasty catagoy, however I think it solidifies it in the case of the Oilers. To win that Cup in 90 after Gretzky was a King proved that they were more than just Wayne. It shown that even without Gretzky they were a powerhouse. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 05/18/2008 : 20:00:07
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
...a true dynasty means that you were the "kings", the "rulers", the "champs" of the league and no one could touch you for a reasonable length of time (number of seasons). If the Oilers lost their title 2 times in the 7 years and only achieved a maximum "2-cup run", can you really consider it a dynasty by definition??? A dominant team? Sure. But Dynasty??? hmmmm???
I kind of feel like you need a 3 year run to be considered a "DYNASTY". Maybe because the first dynasty I witnessed (other than the Habs but I was pretty young) was the Islanders with 4 straight cups.
I think 5 in 7 meets the definition of "dynasty". Thats a pretty long time and a good enough percentage in my dictionary. But, on the other hand, 4 out of 7 may not meet it for me, so I guess I understand where you are coming from. Actually, at one point the Oilers were at 4 in 5 which raises an interesting part of this question. If a multiple championship team comes back after a year or two after winning their string of cups, should that extra Cup hurt, or help, that team meet the "dynasty" definition? At first glance, you would think that the answer would be "of course, yes, the extra Cup helps", but when you think about it, 4 out of 5 may actually sound better than 5 out of 7. And what if the Oiler's last win would have happened a year or two later? Then it would have been 5 out of 8 or 5 out of 9. It's almost like that extra last Cup actually has the effect of lessening the "dynasty" image.
The Leafs of the 60s are an example of this last point I guess. Were they a dynasty? They won three in a row and then one a few years later so they ended at 4 out of 7. In the Leaf's case, it's kind of unfortunate that the Habs also won a lot of Cups that decade ( ) because if those Hab cups would have been spread around amongst a number of teams in that 6 team league, the Leaf's '60s performance would stand out a lot more historically.
But in the Oilers case I think it would be more than fair to use any of the words Leigh used ("kings", "rulers" etc) for the period from '84 to '90, but you may have to qualify the word somehow -"Somewhat flawed kings" maybe.
Edit 1 - Curious what others think about the '60s Leafs. Would you consider them a dynasty?
Edit 2 - My answer to this question by the way is the late '70s Habs - primarily because of the way they dominated. The first two years of the run they were as close to untouchable as I've seen. The next two they were more touchable, but that may be even more of a testament to their greatness. What I mean is that even though they weren't quite as good as those first two years, they still found a way to have excellent regular seasons and then make their way through the playoffs and overcome the Cherry-O'Reilly-Cashman... TREMENDOUSLY hardworking Bruins team that, when you focus on just the effort exerted, may very well have been of any losing team in history, the losing team that exerted the most effort in the course of losing ever. Yes, I had to get that in for the late '70s Bs. But the point is that, despite that effort, the Habs still won, and that is a testament to their greatness.
Edit 3 Another thing that should be noted here is that in a poll I did a while back about the toughest opposition for the dynasty teams, a lot of people seemed to think the Islanders had it the toughest (not in terms of their finals opponents, but in terms of the general level of competition at the time). If that's true, that probably should give them a few points in this discussion too. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/16/2008 : 12:55:05
Interesting point, I guess it's all in perception. It's hard to argue that the Oilers didn't dominate everyone and everything for at least 6 years in the 80's. However, if you measure is winning the Cup, then I hear your point.
I think back in the day that winning the Cup back-to-back was good, but not amazing. In today's NHL, back to back is unheard of.
I still say the Oilers were a dynasty. |
| leigh |
Posted - 05/16/2008 : 01:22:50
Personally I've always considered the 80's Oil a dynasty...but maybe I should have questioned it a bit more.
I'm just playing devil's advocate here but listen up...a true dynasty means that you were the "kings", the "rulers", the "champs" of the league and no one could touch you for a reasonable length of time (number of seasons). If the Oilers lost their title 2 times in the 7 years and only achieved a maximum "2-cup run", can you really consider it a dynasty by definition??? A dominant team? Sure. But Dynasty??? hmmmm???
I kind of feel like you need a 3 year run to be considered a "DYNASTY". Maybe because the first dynasty I witnessed (other than the Habs but I was pretty young) was the Islanders with 4 straight cups.
I feel like my hockey world just got turned upside down. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 20:05:48
As the biggest Oiler Fan on the Site, I can reasonably concede to the 50's Habs. I could even accept a tie with the 70's Habs.
I would rank them as follows:
1) 50's Habs
2) (tie) 80's Oilers, 70's Habs
3) Late 70's/Early 80's Islanders.
I think something people fail to remember is that the best of those 7 years of the Oilers "Dynasy" ran into a very hot Flames team and ultimately lost a game 7 on an own goal. Granted, they should not have even been in that 7th game, but one could reasonably argue that if Steve Smith doesn't rock that puck off the back of Fuhr's skate, there would have been two teams to win 5 Cups in a Row!! |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 16:31:18
Hey Leigh,
Thanks for your comments, I can't argue the fact of the Canadiens dominance throughout hockey's history....but...lol....I do think the ability to have access to a selective talent pool, in a game that was originated in your 'back yard', does indeed have an advantage. I understand that those were the rules and such, but it still gave the Habs a decided advantage when icing teams...just my opinion. I draw the correlation to the Yankees...where it is money versus ethnicity.
Had the Maple Leafs had first access to all the Canadian Eastern Anglo players before the other 5 teams in the league, perhaps they would have been as, or more dominant than the mighty Habs?
Regarding the Oiler's right to be called a dynasty, you answered the question by stating that they won 5 cups in 7 years. To do that in a 21 team league versus a 6 team league, only bolsters my choice. That and the fact that they also had to build their team in a rule following fashion, as well as compete against established successful franchises; Islanders, Flyers etc. Nobody has even come close to replicating that feat since then...
Thanks again and I look forward to further comments..
|
| leigh |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 15:52:51
Interesting thing about the Oilers is that they only ever won 2 in a row (although they won 5 in 7 years) Can they truly be considered a DYNASTY?
The NHL.com site thinks of the 80's Oilers as a Dynasty.... http://www.nhl.com/cup/dynasties.html |
| leigh |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 15:43:36
Hey fat elvis rocked, interesting topic. I would respond to your comments to willus with "does that matter?" or "is that relevant?" the rules are the rules for that day and age. As long as the teams are playing within it, it shouldn't matter. So in this situation the Habs team should be considered...after all you are talking about the quality of the team, and not how they built it. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 13:26:02
'You missed the 50's Habs who in my opinion has to be the greatest dynasty followed very closely by the 70's Habs.
The 50's Habs have 8 players in the HOF and another who should be. 3 of those players are top 15-20 all time. 2 of them are top 10. Only team to ever win 5 Cups in a row.'
Thanks for your thoughts Willus, a quick side question, would those 50's Habs teams have been as dominant, had Montreal not had automatic rights to French-Canadian players? I believe that was the case until the late 60's...regarding the 5 in a row Habs, I agree, dominant in level playing field regarding other team's ability to draft/sign French players.
Thanks for your response
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 11:24:21
You missed the 50's Habs who in my opinion has to be the greatest dynasty followed very closely by the 70's Habs.
The 50's Habs have 8 players in the HOF and another who should be. 3 of those players are top 15-20 all time. 2 of them are top 10. Only team to ever win 5 Cups in a row.
Both of those teams could beat you any way they chose. Offensively or defensively.
I don't consider the 70's Bruins a dynasty. |
| Guest9655 |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 11:19:44
I thought the '90s Penguins had a good thing going as well. If Lemieux could have stayed healthy on a consistent basis, imagine the possibilities... |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 11:01:03
I'll start....80's Oilers
In my opinion they changed the face of the game and their cup wins in the amount of time that they had been in the league at that time, makes them the Dynasty of dynasties....now if they could only recoup some of that magic...sigh |
|
|
