HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Colorado, Detroit and New Jersey

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-03-2012, 04:09 AM
  #26
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 50
Let me preface this by saying that Forsberg was a great player and I understand the "Forsberg over Sakic at their peaks" argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
1997: Forsberg's health. With a healthy Forsberg, Colorado could've stolen one of the close games (Game 2 or Game 6 for sure). Roy was excellent. Sakic could've been better.
Sakic's 4 goals and 6 points in 6 games is pretty respectable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
1998: Sakic. He was suspended because of Game 82, and they lose Game 1. He then scores in just Games 2 and 3 and subsequently disappears. Joseph was incredible. Of Roy's two below-average games (SPCT), only one was a loss, and Colorado was shutout anyway.
Should be noted that Sakic missed about two months and came back for the last six games of the season, then the playoffs. If we're giving Forsberg a mulligan for his injuries, seems that Sakic should probably be given the benefit of the doubt here as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
1999: Roy and Sakic. Sakic was in a rut since the first round, and Roy was getting peppered (40+ SA in three games). The Avs looked like they ran out of offense by the end of Game 5.
It's known that Sakic was playing through injury here. Forsberg scoring 7 points in 7 games to Sakic's 5 points is not so different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
2000: Sakic. He was worse than he was in 1999. The three wins were 2-0, 2-0, 2-1; Roy nearly stole this series.
Sakic has a bad series here, but Forsberg's 5 points in 7 games isn't exactly dominant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
2002: Sakic again. Roy needed a better Game 7, but he was too good the rest of the series (only two games with a below-average SPCT; Hasek had three). Forsberg was looking tired, but still scored in the clutch, both by himself and with Drury. Sakic needed the type of big game that Roy and Forsberg were providing.
Let's put this in perspective. Sakic is 32, Forsberg 28. Entering the 2002 WCF, since the start of the 2000/1 season, Sakic has played 164 regular season games and 35 playoff games. He also had to shoulder more than the usual burden when Forsberg missed the 2001 WCF/SCF and the entire 2002 season. In that same time, Forsberg has played 73 regular season games and 25 playoff games, so less than half as many games as Sakic. Forsberg is 4 years younger and always has Sakic there when he returns.

Did Sakic need another "big game" or did he need a rest and/or a healthy Forsberg? Let's face it, without Sakic's performance in 2001, Forsberg has only the one Cup in '96. During the 2nd/3rd rounds in '96, Forsberg had 5 points in 11 games. I don't mean to denigrate Forsberg's playoff reputation, but OTOH...

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Still, the only better playoff skater during that cumulative time-frame was his second-line center.
This is at minimum debatable. I assume the cumulative time frame to which you refer is '95 to '04:

Sakic 147 gm, 75 G, 163 Pts, +9
Forsberg 133 gm, 57 G, 154 Pts, +47
Jagr 83 gm, 46 G, 102 Pts, +23
Lemieux 41 gm, 20 G, 50 Pts, +3
Lindros 50 gm, 24 G, 53 Pts, +10
Fedorov 130 gm, 40 G, 130 Pts, +34

Gretzky, Fleury, St. Louis & Messier were the other players with at least 1.00 PPG, but didn't play in more than 3 playoffs nor in more than 36 playoff games.

Per 82 games played:

Sakic 42 G, 91 Pts, +5
Forsberg 35 G, 95 Pts, +29
Jagr 45 G, 101 Pts, +23
Lemieux 40 G, 100 Pts, +6
Lindros 39 G, 93 Pts, +16
Fedorov 25 G, 82 Pts, +21

playoff games missed during that time: Lindros 31, Forsberg 14, Jagr 6, Sakic 2

So should Sakic and Jagr be penalized for playing through more of their major injuries than Forsberg and/or being more durable in general? Even so, it's not clear that Forsberg was the best playoff player during the time frame. If Sakic sat out the 2nd/3rd rounds in '99, his overall per-game numbers improve (and Forsberg's might have gone down a bit). Likewise, if Jagr didn't play the '01 ECF with basically one arm (or, e.g., the last two games of '00 second round with obvious injury) then his per-game numbers also improve.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 07-03-2012 at 04:58 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 05:05 AM
  #27
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Sakic's 4 goals and 6 points in 6 games is pretty respectable.
This is in regard to 1997, when Sakic recorded 2 goals and 1 assist in the Avalanche's 6-0 blowout win in Game 5 when they were already down 3-1 in the series (meaning that half of his points were practically throw-away). Again, the problem is always primarily depth, but there were only 6 other Avalanche goals total in the remaining 5 games of the series. Just like the rest of the team, he could've been better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
Should be noted that Sakic missed about two months and came back for the last six games of the season, then the playoffs. If we're giving Forsberg a mulligan for his injuries, seems that Sakic should probably be given the benefit of the doubt here as well.
Are you trying to equate playing through multiple concussions with returning from injury? Joe Sakic was a point-per-game player in his final six regular season games after his return from knee injury, then he disappeared in the final four games against Edmonton after being suspended for Game 1. That's not the same as a player getting his brain rattled.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
It's known that Sakic was playing through injury here. Forsberg scoring 7 points in 7 games to Sakic's 5 points is not so different.
It's also known that he lit up the Sharks and succumbed to Detroit's and Dallas' second-line defenses. You're looking only at total points; Sakic had 4 scoreless games.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
Sakic has a bad series here, but Forsberg's 5 points in 7 games isn't exactly dominant.
And yet, it's better than three assists. And of course Forsberg wasn't dominant; if any of Sakic, Roy, or Forsberg were dominant in these series, they wouldn't have lost.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
Let's put this in perspective. Sakic is 32, Forsberg 28. Entering the 2002 WCF, since the start of the 2000/1 season, Sakic has played 164 regular season games and 35 playoff games. He also had to shoulder more than the usual burden when Forsberg missed the 2001 WCF/SCF and the entire 2002 season. In that same time, Forsberg has played 73 regular season games and 25 playoff games, so less than half as many games as Sakic. Forsberg is 4 years younger and always has Sakic there when he returns.

Did Sakic need another "big game" or did he need a rest and/or a healthy Forsberg?
What he needed was to not be a minus-player in five separate games.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
So should Sakic and Jagr be penalized for playing through more of their major injuries than Forsberg and/or being more durable in general?
So what your saying is that Forsberg should have played the 12 games after his spleen exploded just like he did after all of those concussions?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 05:09 AM
  #28
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoldenJet View Post
You neglect to mention that 1996 series where Forsberg had 4 points and Sakic had 9. Also 2001 is conspicuously missing, hmmm.
Well, gee whiz, I can't seem to recall the Avalanche losing series in those years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoldenJet
Also Fosrberg's concussion in 1997 happened near the end of the series. He only played 1 game concussed, and 1 point in the other 4 games from Forsberg was just no good for the Avalanche against DRW
He got a concussion in late-March during the regular season and another concussion against Edmonton in the round prior to Detroit.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 06:04 AM
  #29
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
I think it's only fair if you're going to cherry pick the playoff series that the avs lost in that time period as an argument for Forsberg>Sakic then you should also look at the tough series that the Avs won in that time period as well. I'm looking primarily at the 1996 Western Conference Finals (CO vs DE) , the 2001 Western Conference Semifinals (CO vs LA), and the 2001 Stanley Cup Finals (CO vs NJ).

1996 WCF:
6 Games 4-2 Colorado

Joe Sakic: 6 goals, 4 assists, 10 points, zero scoreless games.
Peter Forsberg: 2 goals, 2 assists, 4 points, three scoreless games.
Roy outdueled Osgood overall I would argue.


2001 WCSF:
7 games 4-3 Colorado

Joe Sakic: 1 goals, 1 assists, 2 points, three scoreless games, DNP two games due to shoulder injury.
Peter Forsberg: 2 goals, 6 assists, 8 points, two scoreless games.
Roy and Potvin both played well I would argue, but Roy gets the upper hand overall.

2001 SCF:
7 games 4-3 Colorado

Joe Sakic: 4 goals, 5 assists, 9 points, one scoreless game.
Peter Forsberg: DNP series due to injury.
Roy outdueled Brodeur.


So obviously in the 1996 WCF, Forsberg wasn't playing all too hot. Sakic on the other hand potted 6 goals and 10 points in 6 games with no scoreless games.

On the other hand Sakic was playing badly in 2001 WCSF+two missed games due to injury, while Forsberg was playing pretty well.

Lastly, Sakic was playing well in the 2001 SCF, while Forsberg didn't play at all due to injury.


Basically, what I'm saying is, your argument that Sakic "cost" the Avalanche three playoff series (98, 00, 02, arguing 99 was sakic's fault would be a stretch) while Forsberg only "cost" them two (97 and 04) is faulty since you only look at losing series in non-stanley cup winning seasons.

Forsberg was able to win in the 01 WCSF despite Sakic not playing well due to/as well as shoulder injury.

Meanwhile Sakic was able to win 96 WCSF despite Forsberg not playing well, as well as able to win 01 SCF despite Forsberg not playing at all.

Basically it boils down to this for me:

Forsberg lost "due to" Sakic: 98, 00, 02
Sakic lost "due to" Forsberg: 97, 04
Forsberg won "despite" Sakic: 01 WCSF
Sakic won "despite" Forsberg: 96 WCF, 01 SCF

Overall series that Forsberg didn't produce to standard: 97, 04, 01 WCSF, 01 SCF (due to injury of course, but we can't really discount that...)
Overall series that Sakic didn't produce to standard: 98, 00, 04, 01 WCSF



This is of course a pretty incomplete analysis overall, as it pretty much only includes the three players Sakic, Forsberg, and Roy, but I'm just following up on the analysis you created.


TL;DR: If you're going to discredit Sakic by pointing to losing (or rather, non SC winning) post season series where he didn't produce. You should at least include SC winning post season tough series as well.


Last edited by Wrath: 07-03-2012 at 06:09 AM.
Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 07:35 AM
  #30
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
I think it's only fair if you're going to cherry pick the playoff series that the avs lost in that time period
Cherry picking? Are you and The Golden Jet even reading this thread? The question presented in the OP is whether or not Colorado should have won more. Why would I talk about their wins?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 07:44 AM
  #31
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
Quote the whole sentence, it makes sense in context.

You turned your "Avs losing more than they should have" statistical argument into a "this is why Forsberg>Sakic" argument...

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 08:23 AM
  #32
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
You turned your "Avs losing more than they should have" statistical argument into a "this is why Forsberg>Sakic" argument...
I said it is an argument for Forsberg in that debate. I didn't say that Forsberg is better than Sakic, and if I were to ever utter such a phrase, I would probably only do so on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays while saying the exact opposite on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. If there's a thread about Conn Smythes, I'll be in there all day talking about 1996. This thread asked about why Colorado didn't win as much as New Jersey and Detroit, and of the three elite players, that's on Sakic more than Forsberg. Marginally better performances from him - particularly in 1999 and 2000 and 2002 (the years they lost the WCF in 7 games) - put the Avalanche in the position for five rings.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 08:50 AM
  #33
SoupNazi
Global Moderator
No Soup for You!!!
 
SoupNazi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Kramerica Industries
Country: Argentina
Posts: 15,375
vCash: 535
Quote:
Originally Posted by noogies87 View Post
Devils were probably the best defensive team since the 1950 Canadien teams. I always will consider them the best team of the 90s for the simple fact they changed the way hockey will play forever. Detroit and the Avs didnt but they iced some of the best teams. With that said, the Wings were the Yankees of hockey back then. Buying Championships.

^3 of those were under the Yzerman era.^ Lidstrom era didnt happen till Stevie retired, in 2006.
True, although you could argue that Lidstrom was around for all of them, and call his tenure with the Wings the "Lidstrom Era." Depends on how you want to look at it.

SoupNazi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 10:50 AM
  #34
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,312
vCash: 500
The whole "S and F should've been better" argument is ridiculous. I can argue that Yzerman, Shanahan, and Fedorov all should have been better, and Detroit should've won 99, 00, and ESPECIALLY 2003. In fact, I still can't believe they lost to Anaheim in the first round.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 01:05 PM
  #35
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
The whole "S and F should've been better" argument is ridiculous. I can argue that Yzerman, Shanahan, and Fedorov all should have been better, and Detroit should've won 99, 00, and ESPECIALLY 2003. In fact, I still can't believe they lost to Anaheim in the first round.
The Red Wings weren't built to live or die based upon the performance of three players like the Avalanche; Detroit had depth.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 02:41 PM
  #36
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 491
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
The Red Wings weren't built to live or die based upon the performance of three players like the Avalanche; Detroit had depth.
Detroit had more depth than the Avs, but not so much that you couldn't do the same thing with Yzerman, Fedorov and Cheveldae/Vernon/Osgood/Joseph/Hasek to explain their exits from 1993 to 2003.

And if anyone was dependent on scoring from the top two or three guys, it was Dallas (Modano, Hull and Nieuwendyk).

Colorado's "role players" were great beyond the top 2 centres. Guys like Ozolinsh, Foote, Kamensky (who outscored Forsberg half the time in the 90s), Claude Lemieux and Adam Deadmarsh were key to their 1996 win. In 2001 they had Tanguay, Hejduk, Drury, Blake and Bourque. Colorado's depth was enviable for just about every team that wasn't Detroit, and even then they beat the 1996 Wings decisively.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 02:49 PM
  #37
MacWinnon
Registered User
 
MacWinnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mountains, Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
The Red Wings weren't built to live or die based upon the performance of three players like the Avalanche; Detroit had depth.
Neither was Colorado, but like any great team a championship run was a bit more reliant on them performing well. Just look at the great depth players they had over the years.
95: Deadmarsh, Kemensky, Lemieux, Ozo, Foote (to a degree), Young, Yelle, Ricci
01: Drury, Tanguay, Foote, Hejduk, Yelle, Podein, Hinote
All contributed with either points or considerable grit. Avalanche are more of a team that could argue depth is the most important thing in getting a cup, because they had so much of it. Just because their stars performed well shouldn't take away from how the role players performed.

MacWinnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-03-2012, 06:20 PM
  #38
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,312
vCash: 500
Kamensky "a role player"? That's funny

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2012, 03:18 PM
  #39
shadow1
Registered User
 
shadow1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 10,986
vCash: 500
Colorado had terrible depth in '01, which eventually led to their demise. Their line-up for game 7 against New Jersey was:

Tanguay - Sakic - Hejduk
Nieminen - Drury - Hinote
Podein - Yelle - Messier
Reid - Reinprecht - Dingman

Bourque - Foote
Skoula - Blake
De Vries - Klemm

Roy

Even without Forsberg, they were loaded up front with Sakic, Drury, Hejduk, and Tanguay. The checking line was really good, but was dismantled only a season later. The only guys who averaged more than 15 minutes of ice time per game in the playoffs are the bolded above, along with Forsberg, Klemm, and Messier.

Like wise, Colorado only got post-season scoring from the bolded above, save for Ville Nieminen's four goal effort. It wasn't surprising that offense was difficult to come by in the following season.

shadow1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 10:54 AM
  #40
Richard
Registered User
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
I didn't want to start another thread, but in thinking of the history of hockey recently the 99-02 Colorado Avalanche stick out in my mind, along with the 90-96 Penguins of the team best suited to being a dynasty that wasn't.

Colorado especially, what 4 conference final losses and 2 cups from 96-02? 7 game losses. If Colorado gets the breaks they win 4 cups.

I really feel, as an outsider that Colorado never lived up fully to its supreme talent. They were better than Detroit (barely), Dallas (substancially) and the Devils (a good bit on the Offensive side). They just were missing that big guy on the back-end early on. Bourque was awesome but older. Then they ran out of depth, they won in 2001 with their worst forward depth of the preceding half-decade. If they had had Blake in 96, they win a bunch of championships; similarly if they have Kemensky, Deadmarsh and Fleury in 02,03 they win a couple more.

It's a shame because they had everything and should have 3 or 4 cups to their name.

Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 11:23 AM
  #41
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard View Post
I really feel, as an outsider that Colorado never lived up fully to its supreme talent. They were better than Detroit (barely), Dallas (substancially) and the Devils (a good bit on the Offensive side).
Colorado was NOT better than Dallas when they lost to them in Game 7 in back-to-back playoffs. The Stars had 19 points more than the Avalanche in 1999, and 6 points more than the Avalanche in 2000.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 11:37 AM
  #42
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 500
Defense and depth were Colorado's achilles-heals.

Detroit and NJ had loaded bluelines. Ozolinsh was a high-risk, high-reward guy but ultimately, the risk took over and he was shipped out. He never developed an all-round game like Sergei Zubov did. And while Foote was an excellent shut-down guy, I don't think he was quite as dominant as Derian Hatcher. Colorado didn't really "fix" their defense until they brought Bourque and Blake in, and by then Sakic and Roy were aging and Forsberg was injury-prone.

Depth was also a major problem for Colorado moving forward - they had a ton of depth from the Lindros trade, but they traded it away at deadline deal after deadline deal. (and to be fair, the deals for Bourque and Blake paid off). But when Colorado won in 2001, they were the first top-heavy team to win the Cup since I don't know when, the 1992 Penguins?

I also don't think Colorado had the coaching of the other teams, at least not Detroit and Dallas, who had Bowman and Hitchcock.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 11:45 AM
  #43
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,164
vCash: 500
i think the underrated thing about the avs is that the two teams that beat them multiple times were built specifically to beat them. nobody was built to beat the wings and stars, or for that matter the devils. (though if the oilers had been smart they would have targeted the stars.)

it doesn't excuse the losses-- edmonton was specifically targeted by the flames and lost once, but then came back to destroy them-- but it partially explains them.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 12:41 PM
  #44
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
i think the underrated thing about the avs is that the two teams that beat them multiple times were built specifically to beat them. nobody was built to beat the wings and stars, or for that matter the devils. (though if the oilers had been smart they would have targeted the stars.)

it doesn't excuse the losses-- edmonton was specifically targeted by the flames and lost once, but then came back to destroy them-- but it partially explains them.
I think that Philadelphia, Toronto, and Carolina all built themselves to beat New Jersey, but only Carolina succeeded and it took several tries.

(By the time Philly beat NJ in 2004, they didn't have Scott Stevens, so it wasn't the same).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 01:00 PM
  #45
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
edited/deleted


Last edited by tombombadil: 11-20-2012 at 11:50 AM.
tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 02:18 PM
  #46
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think that Philadelphia, Toronto, and Carolina all built themselves to beat New Jersey, but only Carolina succeeded and it took several tries.

(By the time Philly beat NJ in 2004, they didn't have Scott Stevens, so it wasn't the same).
i never got that sense (in that i never saw how those were specifically "trap breaking" teams; seems like pittsburgh would have been the closest thing, though i don't think their strategy was to beat NJ so much as it was to keep jagr and sometimes mario happy).

but i'd love to hear about this. you obviously saw a lot more of the eastern conference than i did those years.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 03:32 PM
  #47
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Depth was also a major problem for Colorado moving forward - they had a ton of depth from the Lindros trade, but they traded it away at deadline deal after deadline deal. (and to be fair, the deals for Bourque and Blake paid off). But when Colorado won in 2001, they were the first top-heavy team to win the Cup since I don't know when, the 1992 Penguins?

I also don't think Colorado had the coaching of the other teams, at least not Detroit and Dallas, who had Bowman and Hitchcock.
Actually it's the moves post-2001 that set Colorado back. Making dumb decisions like letting Drury go, trading Tanguay because they were frustrated with him despite him being a top 6 player and never getting anything as good in return, poor drafting outside of Liles, not being able to retain good role players like Reinprecht/Niemenen, and the biggest failure being the inability to bring in a single proper starting goalie until Varlamov. Sakic was still able to put up pts and continue as one of the best players in the league, he had the hockey IQ to keep putting up pts. Forsberg obviously kept getting injured but it was just bad mgmt that led to the team's downfall.

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 08:29 PM
  #48
jack mullet
@jackmullethockey
 
jack mullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Baxter, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think that Philadelphia, Toronto, and Carolina all built themselves to beat New Jersey, but only Carolina succeeded and it took several tries.

(By the time Philly beat NJ in 2004, they didn't have Scott Stevens, so it wasn't the same).
NJ was always a head scratcher for me. as consistent as they were in the regular season, they were very inconsisten in the playoffs, at least by winning standards.

when they did actually get out of the first round though, and even this year this proved to be true, they usually go all the way, or lose in the finals.

jack mullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2012, 08:55 AM
  #49
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
NJ "overachieved" to the tune of three Cups? Evidence that Scott Stevens was the greatest captain of his era?

They had a different coach for each Cup, so it's hard to just credit coaching Devila of 1999-00 and 2000-01 were certainly not lacking in firepower though, even lacking that one superstar up front.

Speaking of coaching: interesting that Detroit and Dallas had stability behind the bench, while Colorado and especially NJ did not
True.

But the 3 coaches were Jacques Lamaire, Larry Robinson & Pat Burns. Think there might be some similarity there?

Also, Lamoriello was at the helm throughout.

To me they were the best defensive team I've ever seen.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2012, 08:59 AM
  #50
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow1 View Post
News Jersey had an insane defense for a little while there, with Scott Stevens, Scott Neidermayer, Ken Daneyko, and Brian Rafalski. They just usually didn't have the same fire power [as Detroit and Colorado] up front, but that mattered less and less towards the end of pre-lockout.

Colorado could have/should have won more cups if they had a better defense. The year they had Ray Bourque, Rob Blake, and Adam Foote, they beat up on New Jersey despite no Peter Forsberg and worse forward depth than in years past. But in the years before and years after, they relied too heavily on mid-tier defensemen despite having some of the best forward depth ever.

Take 1999 for example:

Deadmarsh - Forsberg - Lemieux
Hejduk - Sakic - Fleury
Kamensky - Drury - Donovan
Hunter - Yelle - Podein
Messier

Ozolinsh - Foote
Lefebvre - Miller
De Vries - Klemm

Roy
Billington

Notice a difference between the defense and offense? It's no surprise they lost a hard fought 7-game series with a more defensive Dallas Stars team.
That may have made a difference.

Dennis Bonvie 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 07:55 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.