HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Progress report: 2004 vs. 1993 (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=61945)

Kerberos* 03-14-2004 12:31 PM

Progress report: 2004 vs. 1993
 
Just how close are we right now to the last stanley cup winning habs team? Discuss.

P.S: I'd contribute my own opinion but I'm too young to remember anything much about the 1993 season (except it maybe a few important goals) so I'd just look like a total idiot if I claimed anything ;)

1993 Team

Vincent Damphousse
Kirk Muller
Brian Bellows
Stephan Lebeau
Mike Keane
Denis Savard
Gilbert Dionne
Eric Desjardins
John LeClair
Mathieu Schneider
Gary Leeman
Patrice Brisebois
Kevin Haller
Benoit Brunet
J.J. Daigneault
Rob Ramage
Paul DiPietro
Guy Carbonneau
Lyle Odelein
Todd Ewen
Ed Ronan
Brian Skrudland
Mario Roberge
Sean Hill
Jesse Belanger
Oleg Petrov
Donald Dufresne
Patrick Roy (G)
Andre Racicot (G)
Frederic Chabot (G)
Turner Stevenson
Eric Charron
Patrik Carnback
Patric Kjellberg


2004 team

Mike Ribeiro
M. Ryder
Saku Koivu
R. Zednik
S. Souray
P. Brisebois
Y. Perreault
Jan Bulis
A. Markov
P. Dagenais
N. Sundstrom
F. Bouillon
Joe Juneau
Steve Begin
A. Dackell
Craig Rivet
Jason Ward
D. Audette
S. Quintal
Chad Kilger
M. Komisarek
D. Langdon
Jim Dowd
Marcel Hossa
Ron Hainsey
B. Gratton
Gordie Dwyer
Karl Dykhuis
A. Kovalev
Jozef Balej
T. Plekanec
C. Higgins
Jose Theodore
Mathieu Garon

BJCOLLINS 03-14-2004 01:21 PM

Patty Roy could win important games by himself......he could shut the door and say no more.......and do it on a consistant basis......Theo hasn't done that yet when it counts.

Catala 03-14-2004 01:25 PM

This year's difference:



We could make a surprise this year, but the team has nothing to do with the 93's one... yet

littleHossa 03-14-2004 01:27 PM

I look at the roster and the 1993 edition has a couple of HOFers, or close to: Roy, Carbonneau, Savard,Damphousse
Where are those HOFers on the 2004 edition?

Duster 03-14-2004 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerberos
Just how close are we right now to the last stanley cup winning habs team? Discuss.

P.S: I'd contribute my own opinion but I'm too young to remember anything much about the 1993 season (except it maybe a few important goals) so I'd just look like a total idiot if I claimed anything ;)

1993 Team

Vincent Damphousse
Kirk Muller
Brian Bellows
Stephan Lebeau
Mike Keane
Denis Savard
Gilbert Dionne
Eric Desjardins
John LeClair
Mathieu Schneider
Gary Leeman
Patrice Brisebois
Kevin Haller
Benoit Brunet
J.J. Daigneault
Rob Ramage
Paul DiPietro
Guy Carbonneau
Lyle Odelein
Todd Ewen
Ed Ronan
Brian Skrudland
Mario Roberge
Sean Hill
Jesse Belanger
Oleg Petrov
Donald Dufresne
Patrick Roy (G)
Andre Racicot (G)
Frederic Chabot (G)
Turner Stevenson
Eric Charron
Patrik Carnback
Patric Kjellberg


2004 team

Mike Ribeiro
M. Ryder
Saku Koivu
R. Zednik
S. Souray
P. Brisebois
Y. Perreault
Jan Bulis
A. Markov
P. Dagenais
N. Sundstrom
F. Bouillon
Joe Juneau
Steve Begin
A. Dackell
Craig Rivet
Jason Ward
D. Audette
S. Quintal
Chad Kilger
M. Komisarek
D. Langdon
Jim Dowd
Marcel Hossa
Ron Hainsey
B. Gratton
Gordie Dwyer
Karl Dykhuis
A. Kovalev
Jozef Balej
T. Plekanec
C. Higgins
Jose Theodore
Mathieu Garon

Not even close but getting there. The 1993 team was led by experienced playoff warriors like Carbonneau, Muller, Roy, Schneider, Damphousse, Keane and Desjardins among others. At the time, these players were among the best in the league at their respective roles. It was a very experienced and highly skilled team with a first rate defense, a good transition game and plenty of leadership. In addition, the present team has no John LeClair, i.e. someone who can stand in front of net, take punishment and is impossible to move. Surely not Dagenais...

It shows BG still has plenty of work to do to make the current edition a true contender IMO.

Freaky Habs Fan 03-14-2004 01:37 PM

Nice one Catala...Pretty cool. That League of the extraordinary Gentleman is better then the real one...

BJCOLLINS 03-14-2004 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by littleHossa
I look at the roster and the 1993 edition has a couple of HOFers, or close to: Roy, Carbonneau, Savard,Damphousse
Where are those HOFers on the 2004 edition?

true. I don't think they had the same type of youth movement or speed that we have on this team but a much better defence + Breezy was playing 4 min. a game.

Guy Caballero 03-14-2004 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duster
Not even close but getting there. The 1993 team was led by experienced playoff warriors like Carbonneau, Muller, Roy, Schneider, Damphousse, Keane and Desjardins among others. At the time, these players were among the best in the league at their respective roles. It was a very experienced and highly skilled team with a first rate defense, a good transition game and plenty of leadership. In addition, the present team has no John LeClair, i.e. someone who can stand in front of net, take punishment and is impossible to move. Surely not Dagenais...

It shows BG still has plenty of work to do to make the current edition a true contender IMO.

Agreed. Gainey has more work to do, but that work could be as simple as continuing to help our current guys develop at the rate they have this year. Imagine Ryder in 3 or 4 years if he keeps working hard and improving his game. He could be as good as Bellows was in his prime. Perhaps Higgins will develop into another Muller. I think that given time, and maybe an addition here or there, this current crop of talent could develop into an elite team. I wouldn't have said that 70 games ago, but these guys are making believers out of me.

Duster 03-14-2004 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BJCOLLINS
true. I don't think they had the same type of youth movement or speed that we have on this team but a much better defence + Breezy was playing 4 min. a game.

I respectfully disagree. The slowest player on the 1993 team was Stephane Lebeau who was similar to Ribs in some ways. Brian Bellows was slow but not like Perreault or Dagenais plus he was physical and could score. Denis Savard, who could still skate, was considered too slow and too small which is why he didn't play much during the playoffs that year.

When we discuss the youth movement, consider that the Habs of '93 were among the better teams in the league. You don't hear about a youth movement in Dallas, Detroit or Colorado...Apples and oranges IMO

MontrealSF 03-14-2004 03:09 PM

Denis Savard didn't play because he was injured. (If I remember well...)

Bring_Bak_Damphousse 03-14-2004 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickyF
Denis Savard didn't play because he was injured. (If I remember well...)

Yeah he was injured, not too slow or too small.

Beatnik 03-14-2004 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bring_Bak_Damphousse
Yeah he was injured, not too slow or too small.

Demers though Savard was too old to be dominant offensivly and did'nt bring much more than that on the table. I'm pretty there was no injury, I was listening to Gilles Proux at the time and he was complaining EVERYDAY because Savard was'nt playing (and when he was playing it was'nt on a good line).

We won in 93 but we got lucky too.
The Nordiques were leading 2-0 when Pagé started making the clown. we where also lucky to face NYI without Turgeon and not face Pittsburg (they lost agains NYI).


we'd need that kind of conjoncture too this years.

Kirk Muller* 03-14-2004 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duster
When we discuss the youth movement, consider that the Habs of '93 were among the better teams in the league. You don't hear about a youth movement in Dallas, Detroit or Colorado...Apples and oranges IMO

Actually, the 1993 team was extremely young. The main core guys like Roy, Damphousse and Muller were around 27. The vets weren't all that old. Savard was 32, Carbonneau was 33, Bellows was about 29.

The defence was very young. Schneider, 23, Brisebois, 22, Daignault, 28, Desjardins, 23, Haller, 23, Odelein, 24, Hill 23.

And then you had a bunch of young forwards who played a major role: Lebeau, Dionne, DiPietro and Leclair.

And just about every support player was a rookie or thereabouts: Ronan, Dufresne, Ewen, Roberge.

Habsaku 03-14-2004 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk Muller
Actually, the 1993 team was extremely young. The main core guys like Roy, Damphousse and Muller were around 27. The vets weren't all that old. Savard was 32, Carbonneau was 33, Bellows was about 29.

The defence was very young. Schneider, 23, Brisebois, 22, Daignault, 28, Desjardins, 23, Haller, 23, Odelein, 24, Hill 23.

And then you had a bunch of young forwards who played a major role: Lebeau, Dionne, DiPietro and Leclair.

And just about every support player was a rookie or thereabouts: Ronan, Dufresne, Ewen, Roberge.

Yeah, I remember when I was young, they talked about the youth of this team. The '86 team though, had 13 rookies, so youth mouvements doesnt mean no cup. Look at the Senators for example.

DJyellow 03-14-2004 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Habsaku
Yeah, I remember when I was young, they talked about the youth of this team. The '86 team though, had 13 rookies, so youth mouvements doesnt mean no cup. Look at the Senators for example.

Senators? Bad examples... they haven't won anything... if anything, they have underachieved in the playoffs

CalHabFan 03-14-2004 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beatnik
Demers though Savard was too old to be dominant offensivly and did'nt bring much more than that on the table. I'm pretty there was no injury, I was listening to Gilles Proux at the time and he was complaining EVERYDAY because Savard was'nt playing (and when he was playing it was'nt on a good line).

We won in 93 but we got lucky too.
The Nordiques were leading 2-0 when Pagé started making the clown. we where also lucky to face NYI without Turgeon and not face Pittsburg (they lost agains NYI).


we'd need that kind of conjoncture too this years.

True, Denis Savard had slowed down, late in his carreer, but he was effectively injured for the final series and most of the conference finals. He was a key element on our power play and, if healthy, would have been used by J. Demers, no question.

tritone 03-14-2004 07:42 PM

In General
 
I think it's silly to be comparing any team from 10 years ago with a team today....In fact it's silly to think that any of us could look at a team on paper and figure out anything valid from it.
IF IT WERE THAT EASY the GM's would make up a list of a guaranteed Stanley cup winning team and they'd go for those players before the deadline each year.....AND DON'T TELL ME THAT nobody has the money to do it....The Rangers have been trying to buy the cup since '94 and look at what it got them.
Having said that....take a look at the Rangers rosters for the last 4 or 5 years and explain why they couldn't even make the playoffs?

Any reasons you can come up with will all go flying out the window come playoff time. The most beautiful part of Hockey is the UNPREDICTABLE season....we're (HABS) surprising and baffling every analyst out there this year for our regular season...what's to say it can't happen in the post-season?

After seeing us beat Philly, Toronto , NJ .... we have just as much of a chance at the Cup as any other team....but the operative word is CHANCE

Darz 03-15-2004 09:23 AM

I think the '93 habs were a good team, but in no way were they the best team in hockey, or that much better than the current group of habs. In fact, in a man by man comparison, I think the '04 team has a higher talent ceiling than the '93 team.

Now can the '04 team get the amazing goaltending that the '93 team got???
Can the '04 team play as good team defense and gel as well as the '93 team did???
Can the '04 team get the timely goals that the '93 team did???
Can the '04 team build the confidence the '93 team did????
Can the '04 team get on the role the '93 team did????
Can the '04 team man to man do what the '93 playoff habs did, man to man?????

Well, I guess we will have to wait and see.

Guy Caballero 03-15-2004 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tritone
In fact it's silly to think that any of us could look at a team on paper and figure out anything valid from it.
IF IT WERE THAT EASY the GM's would make up a list of a guaranteed Stanley cup winning team and they'd go for those players before the deadline each year.....AND DON'T TELL ME THAT nobody has the money to do it....

Sure there are teams who have the money to do it. That's basically what the Leafs are doing this year. If the product on the ice were anywhere near what they look like on paper (ten years ago), they'd be scary.

Bon Esprit 03-15-2004 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickyF
Denis Savard didn't play because he was injured. (If I remember well...)

Right he couldn't play due to injury. You can't compare both teams. Vinny, Leclair, Desjardins, Roy.
Anyone remember the "Mc Sorley stick thing" in the finals? It was an all or nothing gambling by Demers! Great one indeed. :yo:

Habsaku 03-15-2004 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJyellow
Senators? Bad examples... they haven't won anything... if anything, they have underachieved in the playoffs


My point was that they are favorites and competing.

felixd 03-15-2004 12:26 PM

The 93 team is a million times tougher. The current edition is not a good playoff team. The Leafs, Flyers and Wings are good playoff teams, because they are capable of being very tough. I hope we don't become like the Senators, who are an extremely talented team, but always get beat by the tougher teams.

Guy Caballero 03-15-2004 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by felixd
The 93 team is a million times tougher. The current edition is not a good playoff team. The Leafs, Flyers and Wings are good playoff teams, because they are capable of being very tough. I hope we don't become like the Senators, who are an extremely talented team, but always get beat by the tougher teams.

I think it's a fallacy that Philly is tough. Their top two lines are no tougher than ours, and our defence is tougher. They may have a couple of goons on lines 3 and 4, but I think we have more grit (although we don't have the size they do).

Habsaku 03-15-2004 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Caballero
I think it's a fallacy that Philly is tough. Their top two lines are no tougher than ours, and our defence is tougher. They may have a couple of goons on lines 3 and 4, but I think we have more grit (although we don't have the size they do).


Roenick, Primeau, Handzus down the middle.

LeClair, Amonte, Recchi, Brashear, Fedoruk on the wings, they are much much more grittier and tougher on offense when healthy.

Our "grit" is Zednik, Koivu, Ryder, Begin, "Down", Langdon, Ward. Ouch, not even close.

We have a slight advantage of toughness on the defense, I'll give you that though.

felixd 03-15-2004 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Caballero
I think it's a fallacy that Philly is tough. Their top two lines are no tougher than ours, and our defence is tougher. They may have a couple of goons on lines 3 and 4, but I think we have more grit (although we don't have the size they do).

Yes, precisely, these goons will kill us because they will push around our star players and we will have nobody to do anything about it and be convincing at the same time. Unless Rivet pulls another fight like the one he had against Marchment out of his ass, Langdon and Quintal can fight all they want, but they still lose.

We have a tougher defense? Please. The only tough people on our D are Souray and Quintal.
(Don't tell me the Cube is tough, he tries real hard, but anyone can knock him over)

Philly has Markov, who hits just about everything in sight, Malakhov, believe it or not, can throw very good checks IF he decides to, Johnsson is no wuss. Ragnarsson is not super tough but he still beats Breezy, Andrei Markov. Who else is on the philly D? Desjardins isn't that tough i'll give you that, and Timander, well, ok, he sucks.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:49 AM.

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.