HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Where You Bored Of The NHL From 1976 to 1990? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1282311)

Supreme King 11-12-2012 01:50 PM

Where You Bored Of The NHL From 1976 to 1990?
 
The NHL from 1975-76 to 1989-90 produced 5 Stanley Cup Champions and three great dynasties. The Candiens took 4 straight from 76 to 79 followed by the Islanders who also took 4 straight from 80 to 83. Then came the Oilers run of 5 cups in 7 season, which was interrupted by the Canadiens in 86 and the Flames in 89.

That being said, did it get boring having the the Canadiens, Islanders and Oilers continually win through out that span?? Are you happier with the league today and the lack of a dynastic team(s)?

King Forsberg 11-12-2012 01:53 PM

The NHL from 95 to 03 was pretty much a 4 team league. Devils, Aves, Red Wings, Stars

DisgruntledGoat 11-12-2012 03:31 PM

No. I prefered it. Back then, it seemed like you had to be a Great team to win a Cup. Now, you just have to get in and get hot at the right time. It meant more pre-parity.

Big Phil 11-12-2012 04:08 PM

We will always talk about the 1980s Oilers, Isles and the 1970s Habs. We won't ever be talking about the 2012 Kings or 2011 Bruins or the 2010 Hawks especially after their fire sale when the team won.

None of those teams were "great" in the all-time scheme. I would say post lockout there are three teams that I would say "could" have been elevated to all-time greatness. The 2007 Ducks had a team that I felt could have won more than once. They screwed it up pretty bad. Niedermayer and Selanne "held out" after 2007 in order to stay under the cap and the team never had that mojo afterwards.

The 2008 Wings could have been that team as well. I don't think they screwed it up at all, they just didn't win another one. The 2009 Pens are a team I think many of us figured would have more than 1 Cup by now. Then they somehow lose to Montreal in 2010, Philly in 2012 and their core was injured in 2011. It became more and more clear that they were a team with less and less hunger to win.

So yeah, I liked it better when there were dynasties. Or even just flagship teams that everyone hated. You might have hated the Flyers but you never missed a game when your team played against them. The NHL needs that hate back in the game again. It is always a better league when the fans hate certain teams and love seeing them lose. And the NHL is always a better place when there is a team that no one can knock off the mantle, like the Oilers.

I honestly don't know what it is these days. Gretzky probably would have wanted to win 10 Cups with the Oilers. He won 4 and was as good as he had ever been in 1988. We haven't seen that with Crosby, or Malkin. They dominated in the 2009 postseason and then have been mediocre since. Or look at Staal, or Getzlaf for example. Young players winning the Cup early with a bright future ahead of them. Staal hasn't been the same player since he won in 2006 and that isn't right. Could all that money they make just simply reduce their hunger to win?

RabbinsDuck 11-12-2012 04:10 PM

I really miss dynasties. Nowadays any team who's goalie gets hot at the right time has a chance to make it to the finals.

SealsFan 11-12-2012 06:36 PM

I miss dynasties too. However, I did find the period in question to be mostly boring, for different reasons. First, I lost my team when the Cleveland Barons (formerly Seals) disbanded and were dissolved into the Northstars. I no longer had a team to passionately root for.

Secondly, living here on Long Island, I HATED the Islanders. Despised them and their fans with every fiber of my being. That 4-Cup run was brutal for me. I started regaining interest in hockey when the Oilers started coming together as a powerhouse.

PhillyBluesFan 11-12-2012 06:46 PM

I think the Kings are going to be the next dynasty.

Sticks and Pucks 11-12-2012 07:06 PM

Dynasties aren't boring because you know they aren't going to last forever. After a while, it becomes a competition of which team can knock off the king.

Buck Aki Berg 11-12-2012 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck (Post 55718235)
I really miss dynasties. Nowadays any team who's goalie gets hot at the right time has a chance to make it to the finals.

Has that really changed, though? 1986 was before my time, and my memory is fuzzy on 1993, but didn't Roy essentially steal those two cups for Montreal? Or was that more of a function of the juggernauts (Flyers, Caps, and Oilers in 1986, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Chicago in 1993) getting knocked out before they got to Montreal, allowing the Habs to just march through?

Ogopogo* 11-12-2012 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supreme King (Post 55714785)
The NHL from 1975-76 to 1989-90 produced 5 Stanley Cup Champions and three great dynasties. The Candiens took 4 straight from 76 to 79 followed by the Islanders who also took 4 straight from 80 to 83. Then came the Oilers run of 5 cups in 7 season, which was interrupted by the Canadiens in 86 and the Flames in 89.

That being said, did it get boring having the the Canadiens, Islanders and Oilers continually win through out that span?? Are you happier with the league today and the lack of a dynastic team(s)?

The fact that certain teams won multiple championships was irrelevant - every team had equal opportunity at that time and that is what made the NHL great. Player salaries were something like 25% of revenues so all teams could compete and that is what makes a pro sports league great. When only a handful of teams can truly compete because of finances that makes a league boring.

Hardyvan123 11-12-2012 07:40 PM

Hockey is hockey, things change over time, more coaching greater parity with more players in from Europe and the US.

I think it's wrong to suggest that guys like Stall and Getzlaf aren't as hungry though it's simply a lot harder to repeat than it ever was with clubs not having total control of players for their entire careers.

The Red Wings are todays version of a dynasty 20 seasons in a row in the playoffs with 4 cups and lots of conference finals.

We simply won't see a 4 year cup run again given the current conditions in the NHL IMO.

hockeypuck2012 11-12-2012 09:02 PM

The problem i have with the dynasty era was only a few teams could compete for the cup & the lower end teams SUCKED. I'll call it "the parity gap".

SaintPatrick33 11-12-2012 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supreme King (Post 55714785)
The NHL from 1975-76 to 1989-90 produced 5 Stanley Cup Champions and three great dynasties. The Candiens took 4 straight from 76 to 79 followed by the Islanders who also took 4 straight from 80 to 83. Then came the Oilers run of 5 cups in 7 season, which was interrupted by the Canadiens in 86 and the Flames in 89.

That being said, did it get boring having the the Canadiens, Islanders and Oilers continually win through out that span?? Are you happier with the league today and the lack of a dynastic team(s)?

Hell no it wasn't boring: The on-ice product was the most exciting the NHL has ever produced. Wide-open fire-wagon hockey instead of a never ending series of 2-1 soccer scores with the Stanley Cup winner is whoever's goaltender gets hot in the post-season.

Big Phil 11-15-2012 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan (Post 55721883)
I think the Kings are going to be the next dynasty.

It remains to be seen but I highly doubt they win again, even once. For starters in order to win they need to actually sit down like grown ups and sign a deal rather than sulking. Secondly, the Kings seem to lack some top shelf talent and teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit who won a singular Cup and another trip to the final never won more than one either. They had some all-time greats on their team as well. The Kings were more or less a team that was "there" to win it. Much like Boston in 2011. Good for them and all, but no one is going to be telling their grandkids about the L.A. Kings someday.

Kloparren 11-15-2012 07:37 PM

Yes they are the Kings were yhe fitst eighth seed to win a cup mixed with a dominating defensive/goalie performance.


Anyways it has a lot to do with presentation. Watching a hockey game now with HD is so much better than even the recent 04. One thing which will ruin hockey clips from now in the future will be a certain know it all, a nasally NBC pbp commentator, and a grumpy retired Cdn goalie but other than that the production value is so much more superior.

Iain Fyffe 11-15-2012 08:50 PM

I don't miss dynasties per se, but there is more parity than is good for my tastes today. Too much sameness between the teams.

Iain Fyffe 11-15-2012 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan (Post 55721883)
I think the Kings are going to be the next dynasty.

Highly unlikely. The chance of Quick ever posting a .946 save percentage in 20 playoff games again is tiny. Their record under Sutter including playoffs was 41-30. Very good, but not dynasty-level by any means.

Rhiessan71 11-15-2012 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hockeypuck2012 (Post 55725727)
The problem i have with the dynasty era was only a few teams could compete for the cup & the lower end teams SUCKED. I'll call it "the parity gap".

As opposed to the mid 90's through till the '04 lockout when only the teams with money could compete for the Cup while the teams without money sucked ;)

Kloparren 11-15-2012 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 (Post 55797489)
As opposed to the mid 90's through till the '04 lockout when only the teams with money could compete for the Cup while the teams without money sucked ;)

Actually the Rangers and Leafs and Flyers and probably a few more like Boston if they'd spend could've competed for cups with better drafting/mgmt. Colorado/NJ won 5 cups between them and 6 finals appearances between 95-2003 and these were certainly not two of the richer teams in the league. I think it's just a myth what others say here. What these teams had were elite elite core players. Roy/Forsberg/Sakic/Foote and Brodeur/Stevens/Niedermayer/Devils relied on many different high end fwds.

Let's not forget that in 03/04, TB/Cgy competed for the cup and TB got there as a result of mgmt and drafting Lecavelier/Richards and acquiring Boyle/St. Louis. I think it's a myth what they say about $ back then. Of course a poorer team did worst in the standings right now and they couldn't compete for a cup but atm with a $60-70 M salary cap, do you really expect NYI or Phx to compete for a cup? They might do well in the playoffs but they're never gonna win until they spend at least $10 M more and shore up some major deficiencies.

No what happened back then was that teams over-emphasized $ instead of development/maintaining draft picks. NYR was one of the best teams in the league last season and that had a lot to do with their own development and also some good GM moves like acquiring a prospect (McDonagh) and then developing him. Around 2000 the Rangers would just try to buy a cup, the result wasn't so good for them so even back then you couldn't "buy a cup."

I think there needs to be a balance here. Allow for a salary cap and maybe a luxury one at that so we can see teams remain competitive for a longer period of time while at the same time having more competition than before. It's normal even in the most successful leagues to have 5 or so completely crap teams. Today's NHL emphasizes drafting and developing prospects, young players are simply worth more and it wouldn't change the philosophy even if they hypothetically got rid of the cap.

jkrx 11-19-2012 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 (Post 55797489)
As opposed to the mid 90's through till the '04 lockout when only the teams with money could compete for the Cup while the teams without money sucked ;)

Which made cinderella runs much more exciting.

Now, how many cups did the leafs, rangers, blues and flyers win again?

brianscot 11-19-2012 05:08 AM

Got to go with those who liked the dynasties.

Those teams had a mistique about them. Not just obvious hockey skills, but less definable intangibles that made them winners. It was like a chemistry class.

There was nothing better on a cold February night in Boston than knowing that Montreal was coming to town or that Winnipeg would be screaming because Edmonton was knocking.

nmbr_24 11-19-2012 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 55790999)
It remains to be seen but I highly doubt they win again, even once. For starters in order to win they need to actually sit down like grown ups and sign a deal rather than sulking. Secondly, the Kings seem to lack some top shelf talent and teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit who won a singular Cup and another trip to the final never won more than one either. They had some all-time greats on their team as well. The Kings were more or less a team that was "there" to win it. Much like Boston in 2011. Good for them and all, but no one is going to be telling their grandkids about the L.A. Kings someday.

I agree that I think it is highly unlikely that the Kings win the next Cup, but I don't agree that the Kings don't have top shelf talent. In fact I would argue they have more top shelf talent than Pittsburgh. The difference, like Boston, is that the best of their top shelf talent is in goal and on D and their forwards are pretty impressive if you stop to think about it for a minute just like Boston's are.

Neither of those teams has Crosby or Malkin, but after that both Boston and LA are far, far better teams and the only question is can Crosby and Malkin balance the disparity in talent.

If this wasn't a capped league then the Penguins could build a dynasty because they have those players.

I am also 100% positive there will be people telling their grandkids about the LA Kings, their playoff performance was one of the most dominating ever, do you really think that people won't talk about a team that almost didn't make the playoffs and had serious trouble scoring all of a sudden turned into a steam roller in the playoffs?

People will make it out to be better than it was because it is a great story, LA's first Cup and the other reasons I mentioned. :laugh: It bored me to be honest.

tony d 11-19-2012 07:45 AM

While I didn't get interested in hockey until 1989, I still have read a lot on that hockey era. Yes only a handful of teams won the Cup but the gameplay was hugely entertaining during that time.

Bexlyspeed 11-20-2012 08:18 AM

1976-1990 was anything but boring. yes the same teams won consecutive cups, but the playoffs were always exciting.

Islanders/Rangers pretty much every post season! and as good as the Isles were i believe they only swept the rags in '81 and were even eliminated by them in 79 after finishing top of the league

cinderella runs by the canucks and the north stars (who ousted Montreal along the way) and what was more dramatic than the Islanders sweeping the oilers in the finals?

and the style of hockey was much better too, back and forth hitting, some fights non stop end to end action!

Dojji* 11-20-2012 08:27 AM

Don't count the Bruins out just yet. They had a bad postseason when their two top centers got hurt, but they're still talented and young and they have top players arriving onto an already pretty stacked roster. They could easily get another if things fall right. A "dynasty" might be a stretch, but this team is going to be exceedingly relevant for at least another 6 years or so, and that assumes they don't find a way to replace Chara.

If there's one thing we've learned about this team in the Chiarelli/Neely era is that they don't take undignified playoff exits well. I expect them to come out with a vengeance the next time they get a real chance to get out on the ice.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:36 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.