HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

settle this: are the Blackhawks a dynasty?

View Poll Results: Are they a dynasty?
no 167 73.89%
yes 59 26.11%
Voters: 226. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-20-2017, 11:33 PM
  #26
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CashMash View Post
Why?
I mean, i guess you could hold fast to the definition of "dynasty" we had in the good ol' days...but then, you're probably never going to see a "dynasty" ever again. It's just too hard to assemble that much talent and hold it all together under the salary cap now. The Blackhawks are a prime example of that. Back in the day, they would've rolled on as a true "dynasty" with all the fantastic players they accumulated...but the salary cap has necessitated they manage a constant revolving door of talent instead.

The game changes, evolves. Expectations and standards have to change and evolve with that.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2017, 11:36 PM
  #27
Eric Sachs
Registered User
 
Eric Sachs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Japan
Posts: 18,120
vCash: 500
I have always defined it (despite being a Devils fan and them clearly missing the cutoffs for me) as basically something like:

Must win a majority of Stanley Cups in a 5+ year period (i.e. 3 in 5, 4 in 6, 5 in 7).
Must make the playoffs the other years

To me, a dynasty means you dominated the league and won more Cups than everyone else combined over that period. I don't care for 'modern dynasties'.. a dynasty is a dynasty. No-one says we have to have one every generation.

Eric Sachs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2017, 11:47 PM
  #28
deadpenguin
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 82
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Sachs View Post
I have always defined it (despite being a Devils fan and them clearly missing the cutoffs for me) as basically something like:

Must win a majority of Stanley Cups in a 5+ year period (i.e. 3 in 5, 4 in 6, 5 in 7).
Must make the playoffs the other years

To me, a dynasty means you dominated the league and won more Cups than everyone else combined over that period. I don't care for 'modern dynasties'.. a dynasty is a dynasty. No-one says we have to have one every generation.
5+ year period? but what if a team wins back to back cups, which hasnt been done since the 97 and 98 Wings? Then dropped off. Thats just a tiny 2 year period but the fact it hasnt been done since way back then must hold some weight

Or if a team ever pulled off a 3peat, but was only at the top those 3 years, don't see how anyone still couldnt call that a dynasty

Number of championships in shortest amount of time is more impressive to me

deadpenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2017, 11:59 PM
  #29
CashMash
Registered User
 
CashMash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The Cold North
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
I mean, i guess you could hold fast to the definition of "dynasty" we had in the good ol' days...but then, you're probably never going to see a "dynasty" ever again. It's just too hard to assemble that much talent and hold it all together under the salary cap now. The Blackhawks are a prime example of that. Back in the day, they would've rolled on as a true "dynasty" with all the fantastic players they accumulated...but the salary cap has necessitated they manage a constant revolving door of talent instead.

The game changes, evolves. Expectations and standards have to change and evolve with that.
Correct. Why does that matter?

CashMash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 12:51 AM
  #30
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 13,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CashMash View Post
Correct. Why does that matter?
It seems a little silly to me to banish a term like that to obsolescence out of a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the league has changed dramatically and there might be new standards for things.

I can see why some people might want to keep the term "pure" or whatever. But for me, it's still a useful term...it just has to be adjusted to represent something a little different. Something that can actually exist in this era of hockey.


I think most people understand that even calling the Blackhawks a "dynasty"...it's something different from the dynasties of old. While still recognizing that the team has been a benchmark for years and brought home multiple cups in that span.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 12:53 AM
  #31
Lady Macbeth
La Reine des Neiges
 
Lady Macbeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ursa Minor Beta
Country: United States
Posts: 78,695
vCash: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by silkyjohnson50 View Post
No. You don't redefine a definition just to make things "fair." It's perfectly fine if there was never another dynasty again.

But a team that never won back-to-back is one strike. A bigger one would be that LA won 2 Cups in that few year stretch as well. A dynasty dominates the era. What Chicago did was spectacular, but not a dynasty.
This is a perfectly fair viewpoint, I just happen to disagree. It's perfectly fair to say they aren't based on this.

However, I believe the cap era has changed it (which you and most others it seems by the poll results disagree with), so it's fair to call them one.

The Kings, however, are not. Nor are the Penguins.

Lady Macbeth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 01:44 AM
  #32
CashMash
Registered User
 
CashMash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: The Cold North
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
It seems a little silly to me to banish a term like that to obsolescence out of a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the league has changed dramatically and there might be new standards for things.

I can see why some people might want to keep the term "pure" or whatever. But for me, it's still a useful term...it just has to be adjusted to represent something a little different. Something that can actually exist in this era of hockey.


I think most people understand that even calling the Blackhawks a "dynasty"...it's something different from the dynasties of old. While still recognizing that the team has been a benchmark for years and brought home multiple cups in that span.
Why is it a useful term? It has no utility for anything practical. Therefore, it is not necessary.

In fact, it has more utility if left alone. This way, one can showcase that the cap puts an end to dynasties, and potentially draw parallels with other sports to see if it applies for them as well.

CashMash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 02:34 AM
  #33
KoozNetsOff 92
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,534
vCash: 500
No.

3 peat. Or you have to repeat at least 1x and have another title thrown in close proximity (3/4, 3/6 with back to back, etc) or, if you don't repeat, win the majority of the championships over a time frame (3/5, 4/7, etc).

KoozNetsOff 92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 03:00 AM
  #34
cbzblaze
Registered User
 
cbzblaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 888
vCash: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
It seems a little silly to me to banish a term like that to obsolescence out of a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that the league has changed dramatically and there might be new standards for things.

I can see why some people might want to keep the term "pure" or whatever. But for me, it's still a useful term...it just has to be adjusted to represent something a little different. Something that can actually exist in this era of hockey.


I think most people understand that even calling the Blackhawks a "dynasty"...it's something different from the dynasties of old. While still recognizing that the team has been a benchmark for years and brought home multiple cups in that span.
So let's assume everyone agrees that the Hawks are a dynasty. My question would be, What if the Pens go on to win 3 or 4 in a row? Where would that leave the Hawks? You can't just say, oh we were wrong about them being a dynasty because a team now just did what we all thought was impossible to do. Nobody knows what the future holds. We may never see another dynasty again. There's nothing wrong with that. Chicago came really really close. Accept it, admire it, but their not a dynasty.

cbzblaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 08:04 AM
  #35
Lari
Registered User
 
Lari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 984
vCash: 500
No, not anymore they aren't. Are the Canadiens a dynasty?

Lari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 10:40 AM
  #36
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,357
vCash: 500
Nope

Close but no cigar.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 10:45 AM
  #37
Voight
0-4 Sweep.. Go Leafs
 
Voight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA > TOR
Country: United Nations
Posts: 14,569
vCash: 520
In this era yes. Nobody is going to be winning cups like the Oilers, Islanders, Leafs and Canadiens did before. Just not possible with a salary cap.

Voight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 10:59 AM
  #38
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
 
Luigi Lemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 15,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Sachs View Post
I have always defined it (despite being a Devils fan and them clearly missing the cutoffs for me) as basically something like:

Must win a majority of Stanley Cups in a 5+ year period (i.e. 3 in 5, 4 in 6, 5 in 7).
Must make the playoffs the other years

To me, a dynasty means you dominated the league and won more Cups than everyone else combined over that period. I don't care for 'modern dynasties'.. a dynasty is a dynasty. No-one says we have to have one every generation.
I agree with that. Minimum 3 in a time period that is more than everyone else combined. Chicago would have fit the criteria if they won this year ('13, '15, '17).

So no they're not a dynasty. Why water down the term? We can just accept there hasn't been a dynasty in a while. When it does happen, it will be all the more special.

Luigi Lemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 11:28 AM
  #39
tony d
Kyle Turris
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 55,952
vCash: 500
No, they had a good run but given they didn't repeat and had 4 1st round exits they're not a dynasty.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 11:31 AM
  #40
The Nuge
Global Moderator
We don't suck?
 
The Nuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,510
vCash: 50
One more win within a couple years, and I'd say yes

__________________
"The Sabres think the suck is their ally? They merely adopted the suck. The Oilers were born in it...molded by it" - dnicks17
The Nuge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 12:02 PM
  #41
Dustin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,193
vCash: 500
Probably as close as you can get without being one. Without a single back to back it's going to be hard to argue for it.

Dustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 01:02 PM
  #42
thedoughboy
Registered User
 
thedoughboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Tinyest of the fifty
Country: France
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McCanovin View Post
Dynasty don't get swept
So the Oilers aren't a dynasty then?

thedoughboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 02:36 PM
  #43
Renly Baratheon
DKRPHF
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,530
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoughboy View Post
So the Oilers aren't a dynasty then?
Oilers never got swept from 1984-1990.

If the 2010-2015 Blackhawks are a dynasty then the 1997-2002 Red Wings should be acknowledged as a dynasty as well. Same number of Cups in the same number of years, but they won B2B and every year was a full season.

The minimum standard should be 3 in 3-4 year span. Just my opinion.

Renly Baratheon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 03:15 PM
  #44
Roo Mad Bro
U havin a giggle m8?
 
Roo Mad Bro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,489
vCash: 500
Dynasty for me is 3 in 4 years.

Roo Mad Bro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 03:21 PM
  #45
hockeyfanatic89
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silkyjohnson50 View Post
No. You don't redefine a definition just to make things "fair." It's perfectly fine if there was never another dynasty again.

But a team that never won back-to-back is one strike. A bigger one would be that LA won 2 Cups in that few year stretch as well. A dynasty dominates the era. What Chicago did was spectacular, but not a dynasty.

Agree 110 percent.

hockeyfanatic89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 03:25 PM
  #46
hockeyfanatic89
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoughboy View Post
So the Oilers aren't a dynasty then?
Oilers lost to Calgary and LA in 7 between 84-90. Every other year was a cup win.

hockeyfanatic89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 04:11 PM
  #47
hockeyfanatic89
Rookie User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 171
vCash: 500
Oilers captured five ( 84-85, 87-88 were back to back) titles between 84-90. swept at least four teams during that run. Never lost in 1st round except Kings in 7 1989. No cup win took more than 5 games. HOF players: #99, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Fuhr, Coffey.

Islanders won 19 straight series between 80-84. No cup took more than six minus 1980. Never swept. Swept at least four teams. HOF players: Gilles, Trottier, Smith, Potvin, Bossy, LaFontaine if you want to include 84 run.

Wings from 97-02 ( 97,98 back to back) won three. Swept four teams. No cup required less then 5. Eliminated once ( By LA in six) in first round. HOF players: Yzerman, Fedorov, Fetisov , Shanahan, Larionov, Lidstrom. Konstantinov we know about. I'm not going to include the stacked hof ( Hull, Luc, Hasek, Chelios) list they added from 99 on.

Blackhawks captured three ( No back to back) titles between 10-15. Swept two teams ( SJ in 2010, Wild 2015). Eliminated in 1st round three times ( Including 2017 sweep). Each cup win took six games. HOF Players: Keith, Hossa, Kane, Toews.

I realize it's the cap era. Parity is more the norm. With that said, they aren't a dynasty. It's very impressive ( Ala San Antonio Spurs). Just don't make the cut for me.

hockeyfanatic89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 07:02 PM
  #48
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,820
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steamwhistle View Post
Why is it based off of 2010 to present? There's no set parameters on what constitutes a "dynasty". '10-'15 Hawks are a dynasty, in my opinion. 3 cups in 5 years during the cap era is very impressive.
Especially when you consider the cap circumvention... very impressive indeed

bluemandan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 07:13 PM
  #49
thedoughboy
Registered User
 
thedoughboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Tinyest of the fifty
Country: France
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roo Mad Bro View Post
Dynasty for me is 3 in 4 years.
Agreed personally

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfanatic89 View Post
Oilers lost to Calgary and LA in 7 between 84-90. Every other year was a cup win.
83 they got swept by the islanders. I was just point out the stupidity of the earlier poster, I don't think the hawks are a dynasty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renly Baratheon View Post
Oilers never got swept from 1984-1990.

If the 2010-2015 Blackhawks are a dynasty then the 1997-2002 Red Wings should be acknowledged as a dynasty as well. Same number of Cups in the same number of years, but they won B2B and every year was a full season.

The minimum standard should be 3 in 3-4 year span. Just my opinion.
They got swept in 83 was my point

I don't think either the hawks or the wings dynasties fwiw

thedoughboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2017, 07:15 PM
  #50
thedoughboy
Registered User
 
thedoughboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Tinyest of the fifty
Country: France
Posts: 1,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
Especially when you consider the cap circumvention... very impressive indeed
Yes, because they used NHL cap clauses that no other team could and their being punished for it.

This viewpoint is so stupid its not even funny

thedoughboy 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 03:02 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.