HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Potential dynasties that never happened

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-17-2017, 09:26 AM
  #1
Jasonthegreat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Potential dynasties that never happened

How many dynasties in NHL history ended before they started? (meaning the potential dynasty won a Stanley Cup or two in a row or in a short period of time but never again won with the team they had in their winning years)

One team I can think of was the early 90s Pittsburgh Penguins. They won back-to-back cups in 1991 and '92, but never won another with that group.

Can anyone else think of other teams that could have had a dynasty but didn't?

Jasonthegreat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 09:30 AM
  #2
jetsfan91
Registered User
 
jetsfan91's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 508
vCash: 500
Tampa when they won the cup in 2004, young super talented team. The lockout took away the chance at winning back to back cups.

jetsfan91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 09:37 AM
  #3
Henkka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tampere, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 14,133
vCash: 500
Colorado Avalanche was one, but Detroit and Dallas prevented it from happening.

Same could have said for Detroit, Devils and Avs prevented it from happening.

Henkka is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 09:48 AM
  #4
jetsfan91
Registered User
 
jetsfan91's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henkka View Post
Colorado Avalanche was one, but Detroit and Dallas prevented it from happening.

Same could have said for Detroit, Devils and Avs prevented it from happening.
97,98,02 was pretty damn close though.

jetsfan91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:00 AM
  #5
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 53,915
vCash: 500
If we're starting with the early 90s Pens, then the next obvious answer is the mid 90s Red Wings. They could very easily have won 4-5 in a row instead of 2.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:06 AM
  #6
CharlestownChiefsESC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Laurence Harbor NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 235
vCash: 500
90s NY RANGERS, Should have won in 92, and with 2 more pieces could have won in 97, I wish they would have gotten Shanahan.

CharlestownChiefsESC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:20 AM
  #7
Moose Head
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 3,349
vCash: 500
Calgary's late 80's team. Really thought they would win more than one. Excellent balance of stars and depth. More quality depth than the oilers, pens, habs and rangers who won cups during the flames window.

Moose Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:21 AM
  #8
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In my appartments
Posts: 35,682
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Head View Post
Calgary's late 80's team. Really thought they would win more than one. Excellent balance of stars and depth. More quality depth than the oilers, pens, habs and rangers who won cups during the flames window.
Eh, didn't their window go down the drain as soon as they traded Gilmour?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:24 AM
  #9
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In my appartments
Posts: 35,682
vCash: 500
Interesting alternate world : The '40ies Habs if they never trade Ted Kennedy, and not necessarily because they are actually using him (... he'd really help, don't get me wrong), but because the Maple Leafs obviously aren't.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:35 AM
  #10
Moose Head
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 3,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Interesting alternate world : The '40ies Habs if they never trade Ted Kennedy, and not necessarily because they are actually using him (... he'd really help, don't get me wrong), but because the Maple Leafs obviously aren't.
During that time Selke also told the Detroit gm he was going to pluck Howe if Detroit didn't put him on their protected list. Different era I guess. No gm in his right mind would do that nowadays

Moose Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:38 AM
  #11
Moose Head
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 3,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Eh, didn't their window go down the drain as soon as they traded Gilmour?
That trade was a symptom that they weren't living up to expectations. Even then, they should have been a great team, even without gilmour.

Moose Head is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:41 AM
  #12
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
if hasek could have somehow magically stayed healthy in his 40s,i could see that ottawa team winning three or maybe more.

i guess other factors at play too though: you need either not to trade hossa or somehow smooth it over with chara so he doesn't leave, and you need redden's mom to not die.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 10:49 AM
  #13
Sticks and Pucks
Registered User
 
Sticks and Pucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,986
vCash: 500
Are the recent Blackhawks considered a dynasty? Because if not, Alec Martinez literally prevented the Blackhawks from winning three Cups in a role when he scored in Game 7 OT in the 2014 WCF.

Sticks and Pucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 12:29 PM
  #14
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 18,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticks and Pucks View Post
Are the recent Blackhawks considered a dynasty? Because if not, Alec Martinez literally prevented the Blackhawks from winning three Cups in a role when he scored in Game 7 OT in the 2014 WCF.
Rangers probably/possibly beat the Blackhawks that year. All Rangers fans were rooting to face the Hawks because we didn't match up as well against the Kings physicality. And we were borne out on that part at least.

I actually always think of those great Blues teams in the early 00s. They were done in by their goaltending.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 12:37 PM
  #15
SovietWings
Registered User
 
SovietWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Pardubice
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 79
vCash: 500
These teams definitely could have won more:
cca 86-90 Flames
cca 96-03 Avalanche or Red Wings (one of them could have been legitimate dynasty winning about 5 cups in that time span if not for the other team)

Some maybes:
What about 70's Flyers and Bruins?
And of course 90's Penguins with healthy Lemieux.
Also 80's Oilers could be mentioned-they didn't win three cups in a row...

SovietWings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 01:53 PM
  #16
tony d
gatorade
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,286
vCash: 500
The Red Wings of the late 90's. Should have won either in 95 or 96. Got to wonder if they had gotten Roy how many Cups they would have won.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:01 PM
  #17
I Hate Chris Butler
Backlund Fan Club
 
I Hate Chris Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,758
vCash: 500
70s Bruins but the competition was too strong.

I Hate Chris Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:03 PM
  #18
Tillman40
Bo Knows Bo
 
Tillman40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Head View Post
Calgary's late 80's team. Really thought they would win more than one. Excellent balance of stars and depth. More quality depth than the oilers, pens, habs and rangers who won cups during the flames window.
I agree I thought this team had a good mix and was going to win a few cups along the way!!

Gilmour, Mullen, Roberts, Fleury, Nieuwendyk, Loob for scoring. Peplinski and Otto were perfect shutdown centres, MacInnis and Suter as your top pairing dmen, Nattress, Murzyn, Ramage, and Macrimmon were a unspectacular but a solid bottom four and Vernon (who I was never a big fan of but had some good not great years) in goal.

Situation of just leave well enough alone and just tinkering with the lineup instead of blowing up the core which GM Doug Risebrough did if I remember correctly ...

Tillman40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:17 PM
  #19
Murky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Head View Post
Calgary's late 80's team. Really thought they would win more than one.
I agree. I lived in Calgary at the time and it was a great great team.

Murky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:20 PM
  #20
Neutrinos
Registered User
 
Neutrinos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Head View Post
Calgary's late 80's team. Really thought they would win more than one. Excellent balance of stars and depth. More quality depth than the oilers, pens, habs and rangers who won cups during the flames window.
Trading Gilmour was likely the beginning of the end

Neutrinos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:37 PM
  #21
mikee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Rangers probably/possibly beat the Blackhawks that year. All Rangers fans were rooting to face the Hawks because we didn't match up as well against the Kings physicality. And we were borne out on that part at least.

I actually always think of those great Blues teams in the early 00s. They were done in by their goaltending.
Both LA and CHI were superior to NYR that year. It would have been a closer series between CHI/NYR than LA/NYR but result would have more then likely remained the same. Regardless, the best team won that year. LA was better than either.

mikee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:40 PM
  #22
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Rangers probably/possibly beat the Blackhawks that year. All Rangers fans were rooting to face the Hawks because we didn't match up as well against the Kings physicality. And we were borne out on that part at least.
I can't envision a scenario where the Rangers beat the Hawks in 2014. I think that the real Stanley Cup final was Chicago/LA. In all fairness, the Hawks of this era have never lost a Cup final and I don't think they would have started with this one considering they could repeat.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:47 PM
  #23
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tillman40 View Post
I agree I thought this team had a good mix and was going to win a few cups along the way!!

Gilmour, Mullen, Roberts, Fleury, Nieuwendyk, Loob for scoring. Peplinski and Otto were perfect shutdown centres, MacInnis and Suter as your top pairing dmen, Nattress, Murzyn, Ramage, and Macrimmon were a unspectacular but a solid bottom four and Vernon (who I was never a big fan of but had some good not great years) in goal.

Situation of just leave well enough alone and just tinkering with the lineup instead of blowing up the core which GM Doug Risebrough did if I remember correctly ...
it's a common misconception that macinnis and suter were the flames' top pair. they almost never played together at even-strength. they did, however, combine to form arguably the greatest blueline pair of any powerplay ever.

the d pairs were:

macinnis macoun
mccrimmon suter
ramage murzyn

after suter got hurt in the '89 playoffs, they were:

macinnis murzyn
mccrimmon ramage
nattress macoun

mccrimmon - ramage and mccrimmon - suter (both guys were 2nd team all-stars in the '88 season) were spectacular second pairs. having rob ramage on your third pair is an embarrassment of riches. ditto jamie macoun; while ramage had been an all-star in the '80s, and still was playing at a high level in '89, late '80s/early '90s macoun was just an amazingly solid stay-at-home guy. i think by '89 it was a legitimate question whether he or mccrimmon was the better defensive defenseman.

but that '89 flames team just couldn't be kept together. sheer economics meant that you had to lose your great older guys, of which there were many. there was no way to keep mullen, mccrimmon, and those guys without letting your younger stars like nieuwendyk or macinnis go. but the idea was you could replace the leadership and knowhow of peplinski, mcdonald, patterson, and those guys with the emerging leadership of gilmour, otto, macinnis, and macoun. and you could replace guys who had to leave like loob with makarov, nieuwendyk would take over gilmour's spot as number one center, reichel would take over nieuwendyk's old second line center duties, fleury's emergence would replace mullen, trevor kidd would replace vernon, gary roberts was a star in the making, etc. unfortunately, even though all of those younger players other than trevor kidd panned out, it still didn't work for whatever reason.

but imo it was over long before the gilmour trade.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 02:47 PM
  #24
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,601
vCash: 500
I would say the Crosby/Malkin Pens could have been one starting in 2009. Then a few bizarre playoff exits and then they win again with different parts in 2016. Still will always be remembered as a great team regardless of what they do but unless they string three in a row here they aren't a dynasty.

Ottawa could have been one as well. There is no reason they can't win the Cup in 2003, 2004, 2006 or 2007. Honestly, if they won two of those Cups no one bats an eyelash.

To be honest, the last decade has been very similar to the 1990s era. There have been 3 or 4 teams that have won and no one else. Here is how I look at it:

Chicago today is similar to the Yzerman/Fedorov Red Wings. Won three Cups, were good in the years in between (still are) one more Cup and they are an official dynasty.

Pittsburgh is Colorado. Two Cups, but spread out too far and everyone figures they should have had another one.

L.A. is probably New Jersey, although with different paths. Both won a Cup and then missed the playoffs the following year.

Boston is the Modano Dallas Stars. Won a single Cup. Weren't as good for as long as the others on this list but still managed one other Cup final trip.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-17-2017, 03:36 PM
  #25
ForsbergForever
Red Rocket
 
ForsbergForever's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,061
vCash: 500
Bruins could have won 3 in 4 years ('70, '71, '72, '74)

Penguins could have won 4 in 6 ('91, '92, '93, '96)

Then we have the Colorado-Detroit-Dallas-New Jersey years of dominance from 1995 through 2004 where any combination of shifting fortunes could have tipped the balance dramatically in one or another's favour.

Colorado:won in '96, '01 / lost in Western Final '97, '99, '00, '02

Detroit: won in '97, '98, '02, '08 / lost in SC Finals '95, '09 / lost in Western Final '96, '07 / also had several dominant regular seasons with early exits like in '04 and '06

Dallas: won in '99 / lost in SC Finals '00 / lost in Western Final in '98 - thus a three-peat isn't beyond imagination.

New Jersey: won in '95, '00, '03 / lost in SC Finals '01

ForsbergForever is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.