That Senators team was absolutely LOADED with talent. They had, at varying degrees, Chara, Redden, Havlat, Hossa, Heatley, Yashin, Spezza, Redden, Phillips, Fisher, Alfredsson prior to peak and after, just an incredible amount of talent. Multiple 100 point seasons, picked favourites to win if not the Cup then at least a few rounds in the playoffs year after year.
People HERE were referring to them as a potential dynasty for crying out loud. That they choked year after year is a testament that the key players didn't "get" what playoff hockey was about until 2007. Longest learning curve EVER. But yeah, Ottawa was the "Dynasty that couldn't".
A dynasty in sports is a team that wins multiple championships over a limited period of time. Ottawa didn't even win one champiojnship let alone multiples. They were not even close to a dynasty. It's laugable to suggest otherwise.
As for your comment "People HERE were referring to them as a potential dynasty for crying out loud." All I need say it that it is patently incorrect. One poster said it and a few other posters, besides me, commented how ridiculous his suggestion was. I simply thanked him for the good laugh I got at what I suspect was just a joke in the first place. Cuz to say Ottawa was almost a dynasty is a joke.
Dynasty that couldn't? They were the team that could barely get past the first round of playoffs.
A team with some good players but no championships a dynasty? Look beyond your Senator sunglasses and be objective and I'm sure you'll agree they do not belong in the discussion.
Bruce Boudreau era Washington Capitals! Not really hockey history, but it already seems like a long time ago. How did they never win the cup?
Because they lacked two little intangibles called heart and character. Sure they had some of the most talented players in the league on their roster, but I don't know if I've ever come across a team as overrated as the Boudreau-era Washington Capitals. This is a team that never made it past the second round so they were nowhere close to a Cup let alone being considered a dynasty. They also melted-down against two teams they were seemingly better than on paper (Montreal and Tampa). It certainly doesn't help that the Washington Capitals franchise itself has a long history of playoff underachievement.
Still this team in particular has never really impressed me. Yes, they have superstars in Ovechkin, Backstrom, Semin, Green etc. but many of those players' commitment have come into question. They play in a division that has been a joke for the last five years. Some of their depth players wouldn't even be on the rosters of other contending teams in the NHL. They haven't had consistently stellar goaltending during that run and they were coached by a bumbling pudding head in Bruce Boudreau.
I'm sorry but if the Boudreau-era Washington Capitals were anything close to a dynasty than so are the Philadelphia Flyers, Vancouver Canucks, and San Jose Sharks. And all of those teams are way ahead of the Capitals in terms of getting it done in the post-season.
I think that Detroit is the best example of a modern dynasty that isn't quite there in the classical sense. Devils were a close second up until recently.
Then you have the obvious candidates post expansion:
Early 70s Bruins that underachieved and still won two Cups.
Mid-70s Flyers that had two wins and made the third finals only to run into another emerging dynasty in the Habs.
Early 90s Penguins that had an immense amount of talent and good coaching but were undone by an Al Arbour motivated team that played together as more than the some of its parts.
I also think that if not for a bounce here and there that Calgary in the late 80s could have been good for another cup or two. They had a very strong and deep team.
I've always thought the post-lockout Leafs were almost a dynasty. The Mats Sundin fiasco in 2008 ruined what I thought was a team that could almost potentially challenge for a playoff spot, and the team was handicapped with a number of fluky bad management decisions like not having a draft pick in the dominant 1st round of the 2003 draft, drafting sure-fire future NHLer John Doherty (who busted) instead of dominant players like David Backes and Dustin Byfuglien, making the trade of the century for mediocre goalie Tuuka Rask for Calder winner Andrew Raycroft (a trade that took a completely unexpected turn, one that basically gave Boston the cup in 2011, which Toronto deserved), drafting dominant future HoFers who have some negative personal traits (like Jiri Tlusty, who has a penchant for taking pictures of his junk), and frequent soul-crushing injuries to franchise cornerstones like Kyle Wellwood.
I truly believe that if the Maple Leafs don't hit a string of unprecedented bad luck, Ryan Getzlaf leads Toronto to Anaheim's cup in 2007, it goes without saying that a healthy Kyle Wellwood leads them to Detroit's cup in 2008, and while no one could stop the heroic powerhouse of the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins, it's obvious that Tuuka Rask would have stolen Tim Thomas' 2010 cup.
The post-lockout Maple Leafs, the dynasty that wasn't.
These two statements seem to contradict each other quite nicely. The Habs of the era are considered the greatest team of all time by some, yet the Lunch Pail Gang Bruins nearly beat them in 1978 and 1979. Cherry couldn't have done too bad a job, and all the players from those teams have nothing but great things to say about him.
That's the thing... They had great depth and good goaltending and were hard workers. Overachievers wouldn't be a bad term. But that doesn't make Cherry a great coach, or even a good coach. Basically telling their guys to do what they do best isn't great coaching.
I've always thought the post-lockout Leafs were almost a dynasty. The Mats Sundin fiasco in 2008 ruined what I thought was a team that could almost potentially challenge for a playoff spot, and the team was handicapped with a number of fluky bad management decisions like not having a draft pick in the dominant 1st round of the 2003 draft, drafting sure-fire future NHLer John Doherty (who busted) instead of dominant players like David Backes and Dustin Byfuglien, making the trade of the century for mediocre goalie Tuuka Rask for Calder winner Andrew Raycroft (a trade that took a completely unexpected turn, one that basically gave Boston the cup in 2011, which Toronto deserved), drafting dominant future HoFers who have some negative personal traits (like Jiri Tlusty, who has a penchant for taking pictures of his junk), and frequent soul-crushing injuries to franchise cornerstones like Kyle Wellwood.
I truly believe that if the Maple Leafs don't hit a string of unprecedented bad luck, Ryan Getzlaf leads Toronto to Anaheim's cup in 2007, it goes without saying that a healthy Kyle Wellwood leads them to Detroit's cup in 2008, and while no one could stop the heroic powerhouse of the 2009 Pittsburgh Penguins, it's obvious that Tuuka Rask would have stolen Tim Thomas' 2010 cup.
The post-lockout Maple Leafs, the dynasty that wasn't.
Man, I hope you're joking because if not that's a heck of an imagination you have. No offense intended but wow.
All I will say is the very thought that Kyle Wellwood is a "franchise cornerstone" is laughable in itself let alone everything else that was posted above.
Man, I hope you're joking because if not that's a heck of an imagination you have. No offense intended but wow.
All I will say is the very thought that Kyle Wellwood is a "franchise cornerstone" is laughable in itself let alone everything else that was posted above.
1995 Stanley Cup Finals (+President's Trophy)
1996 President's Trophy
1997 Stanley Cup
1998 Stanley Cup
2002 Stanley Cup (+President's Trophy)
2004 President's Trophy
2006 President's Trophy
2008 Stanley Cup
2009 Stanley Cup Finals
Lets continue with the Scotty Bowman era..
2009 WCF loss
2010 Stanley Cup
2011 First Round OT exit (in game 7 against the Western Conference champions)
2012 on pace to win the Presidents Trophy...
That's the thing... They had great depth and good goaltending and were hard workers. Overachievers wouldn't be a bad term. But that doesn't make Cherry a great coach, or even a good coach. Basically telling their guys to do what they do best isn't great coaching.
Your contention was that Cherry was a terrible coach. How many teams with terrible coaches overachieve relative to their talent? I'd say it's pretty much unheard of.
No offense intended but wow.
