HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Where You Bored Of The NHL From 1976 to 1990?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 02:50 PM
  #1
Supreme King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 72
vCash: 500
Where You Bored Of The NHL From 1976 to 1990?

The NHL from 1975-76 to 1989-90 produced 5 Stanley Cup Champions and three great dynasties. The Candiens took 4 straight from 76 to 79 followed by the Islanders who also took 4 straight from 80 to 83. Then came the Oilers run of 5 cups in 7 season, which was interrupted by the Canadiens in 86 and the Flames in 89.

That being said, did it get boring having the the Canadiens, Islanders and Oilers continually win through out that span?? Are you happier with the league today and the lack of a dynastic team(s)?

Supreme King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:53 PM
  #2
King Forsberg
21 68 88 16 44 28
 
King Forsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,387
vCash: 500
The NHL from 95 to 03 was pretty much a 4 team league. Devils, Aves, Red Wings, Stars

King Forsberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 04:31 PM
  #3
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,226
vCash: 500
No. I prefered it. Back then, it seemed like you had to be a Great team to win a Cup. Now, you just have to get in and get hot at the right time. It meant more pre-parity.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:08 PM
  #4
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,547
vCash: 500
We will always talk about the 1980s Oilers, Isles and the 1970s Habs. We won't ever be talking about the 2012 Kings or 2011 Bruins or the 2010 Hawks especially after their fire sale when the team won.

None of those teams were "great" in the all-time scheme. I would say post lockout there are three teams that I would say "could" have been elevated to all-time greatness. The 2007 Ducks had a team that I felt could have won more than once. They screwed it up pretty bad. Niedermayer and Selanne "held out" after 2007 in order to stay under the cap and the team never had that mojo afterwards.

The 2008 Wings could have been that team as well. I don't think they screwed it up at all, they just didn't win another one. The 2009 Pens are a team I think many of us figured would have more than 1 Cup by now. Then they somehow lose to Montreal in 2010, Philly in 2012 and their core was injured in 2011. It became more and more clear that they were a team with less and less hunger to win.

So yeah, I liked it better when there were dynasties. Or even just flagship teams that everyone hated. You might have hated the Flyers but you never missed a game when your team played against them. The NHL needs that hate back in the game again. It is always a better league when the fans hate certain teams and love seeing them lose. And the NHL is always a better place when there is a team that no one can knock off the mantle, like the Oilers.

I honestly don't know what it is these days. Gretzky probably would have wanted to win 10 Cups with the Oilers. He won 4 and was as good as he had ever been in 1988. We haven't seen that with Crosby, or Malkin. They dominated in the 2009 postseason and then have been mediocre since. Or look at Staal, or Getzlaf for example. Young players winning the Cup early with a bright future ahead of them. Staal hasn't been the same player since he won in 2006 and that isn't right. Could all that money they make just simply reduce their hunger to win?

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:10 PM
  #5
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,737
vCash: 500
I really miss dynasties. Nowadays any team who's goalie gets hot at the right time has a chance to make it to the finals.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 07:36 PM
  #6
SealsFan
Registered User
 
SealsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 874
vCash: 500
I miss dynasties too. However, I did find the period in question to be mostly boring, for different reasons. First, I lost my team when the Cleveland Barons (formerly Seals) disbanded and were dissolved into the Northstars. I no longer had a team to passionately root for.

Secondly, living here on Long Island, I HATED the Islanders. Despised them and their fans with every fiber of my being. That 4-Cup run was brutal for me. I started regaining interest in hockey when the Oilers started coming together as a powerhouse.

SealsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 07:46 PM
  #7
PhillyBluesFan
Registered User
 
PhillyBluesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,681
vCash: 500
I think the Kings are going to be the next dynasty.

PhillyBluesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:06 PM
  #8
Sticks and Pucks
Registered User
 
Sticks and Pucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,491
vCash: 500
Dynasties aren't boring because you know they aren't going to last forever. After a while, it becomes a competition of which team can knock off the king.

Sticks and Pucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:25 PM
  #9
Buck Aki Berg
My pockets hurt
 
Buck Aki Berg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I really miss dynasties. Nowadays any team who's goalie gets hot at the right time has a chance to make it to the finals.
Has that really changed, though? 1986 was before my time, and my memory is fuzzy on 1993, but didn't Roy essentially steal those two cups for Montreal? Or was that more of a function of the juggernauts (Flyers, Caps, and Oilers in 1986, Boston, Pittsburgh, and Chicago in 1993) getting knocked out before they got to Montreal, allowing the Habs to just march through?

Buck Aki Berg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:37 PM
  #10
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
The NHL from 1975-76 to 1989-90 produced 5 Stanley Cup Champions and three great dynasties. The Candiens took 4 straight from 76 to 79 followed by the Islanders who also took 4 straight from 80 to 83. Then came the Oilers run of 5 cups in 7 season, which was interrupted by the Canadiens in 86 and the Flames in 89.

That being said, did it get boring having the the Canadiens, Islanders and Oilers continually win through out that span?? Are you happier with the league today and the lack of a dynastic team(s)?
The fact that certain teams won multiple championships was irrelevant - every team had equal opportunity at that time and that is what made the NHL great. Player salaries were something like 25% of revenues so all teams could compete and that is what makes a pro sports league great. When only a handful of teams can truly compete because of finances that makes a league boring.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:40 PM
  #11
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,124
vCash: 500
Hockey is hockey, things change over time, more coaching greater parity with more players in from Europe and the US.

I think it's wrong to suggest that guys like Stall and Getzlaf aren't as hungry though it's simply a lot harder to repeat than it ever was with clubs not having total control of players for their entire careers.

The Red Wings are todays version of a dynasty 20 seasons in a row in the playoffs with 4 cups and lots of conference finals.

We simply won't see a 4 year cup run again given the current conditions in the NHL IMO.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:02 PM
  #12
hockeypuck2012
Registered User
 
hockeypuck2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 87
vCash: 500
The problem i have with the dynasty era was only a few teams could compete for the cup & the lower end teams SUCKED. I'll call it "the parity gap".

hockeypuck2012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:29 PM
  #13
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
The NHL from 1975-76 to 1989-90 produced 5 Stanley Cup Champions and three great dynasties. The Candiens took 4 straight from 76 to 79 followed by the Islanders who also took 4 straight from 80 to 83. Then came the Oilers run of 5 cups in 7 season, which was interrupted by the Canadiens in 86 and the Flames in 89.

That being said, did it get boring having the the Canadiens, Islanders and Oilers continually win through out that span?? Are you happier with the league today and the lack of a dynastic team(s)?
Hell no it wasn't boring: The on-ice product was the most exciting the NHL has ever produced. Wide-open fire-wagon hockey instead of a never ending series of 2-1 soccer scores with the Stanley Cup winner is whoever's goaltender gets hot in the post-season.


Last edited by Morgoth Bauglir: 11-15-2012 at 04:33 PM.
Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 04:18 PM
  #14
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan View Post
I think the Kings are going to be the next dynasty.
It remains to be seen but I highly doubt they win again, even once. For starters in order to win they need to actually sit down like grown ups and sign a deal rather than sulking. Secondly, the Kings seem to lack some top shelf talent and teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit who won a singular Cup and another trip to the final never won more than one either. They had some all-time greats on their team as well. The Kings were more or less a team that was "there" to win it. Much like Boston in 2011. Good for them and all, but no one is going to be telling their grandkids about the L.A. Kings someday.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 08:37 PM
  #15
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,484
vCash: 500
Yes they are the Kings were yhe fitst eighth seed to win a cup mixed with a dominating defensive/goalie performance.


Anyways it has a lot to do with presentation. Watching a hockey game now with HD is so much better than even the recent 04. One thing which will ruin hockey clips from now in the future will be a certain know it all, a nasally NBC pbp commentator, and a grumpy retired Cdn goalie but other than that the production value is so much more superior.

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 09:50 PM
  #16
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
I don't miss dynasties per se, but there is more parity than is good for my tastes today. Too much sameness between the teams.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 09:54 PM
  #17
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan View Post
I think the Kings are going to be the next dynasty.
Highly unlikely. The chance of Quick ever posting a .946 save percentage in 20 playoff games again is tiny. Their record under Sutter including playoffs was 41-30. Very good, but not dynasty-level by any means.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 09:56 PM
  #18
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeypuck2012 View Post
The problem i have with the dynasty era was only a few teams could compete for the cup & the lower end teams SUCKED. I'll call it "the parity gap".
As opposed to the mid 90's through till the '04 lockout when only the teams with money could compete for the Cup while the teams without money sucked

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 11:06 PM
  #19
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
As opposed to the mid 90's through till the '04 lockout when only the teams with money could compete for the Cup while the teams without money sucked
Actually the Rangers and Leafs and Flyers and probably a few more like Boston if they'd spend could've competed for cups with better drafting/mgmt. Colorado/NJ won 5 cups between them and 6 finals appearances between 95-2003 and these were certainly not two of the richer teams in the league. I think it's just a myth what others say here. What these teams had were elite elite core players. Roy/Forsberg/Sakic/Foote and Brodeur/Stevens/Niedermayer/Devils relied on many different high end fwds.

Let's not forget that in 03/04, TB/Cgy competed for the cup and TB got there as a result of mgmt and drafting Lecavelier/Richards and acquiring Boyle/St. Louis. I think it's a myth what they say about $ back then. Of course a poorer team did worst in the standings right now and they couldn't compete for a cup but atm with a $60-70 M salary cap, do you really expect NYI or Phx to compete for a cup? They might do well in the playoffs but they're never gonna win until they spend at least $10 M more and shore up some major deficiencies.

No what happened back then was that teams over-emphasized $ instead of development/maintaining draft picks. NYR was one of the best teams in the league last season and that had a lot to do with their own development and also some good GM moves like acquiring a prospect (McDonagh) and then developing him. Around 2000 the Rangers would just try to buy a cup, the result wasn't so good for them so even back then you couldn't "buy a cup."

I think there needs to be a balance here. Allow for a salary cap and maybe a luxury one at that so we can see teams remain competitive for a longer period of time while at the same time having more competition than before. It's normal even in the most successful leagues to have 5 or so completely crap teams. Today's NHL emphasizes drafting and developing prospects, young players are simply worth more and it wouldn't change the philosophy even if they hypothetically got rid of the cap.

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 05:05 AM
  #20
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
As opposed to the mid 90's through till the '04 lockout when only the teams with money could compete for the Cup while the teams without money sucked
Which made cinderella runs much more exciting.

Now, how many cups did the leafs, rangers, blues and flyers win again?

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 06:08 AM
  #21
brianscot
Registered User
 
brianscot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: portland, me
Posts: 1,342
vCash: 500
Got to go with those who liked the dynasties.

Those teams had a mistique about them. Not just obvious hockey skills, but less definable intangibles that made them winners. It was like a chemistry class.

There was nothing better on a cold February night in Boston than knowing that Montreal was coming to town or that Winnipeg would be screaming because Edmonton was knocking.

brianscot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 06:57 AM
  #22
nmbr_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It remains to be seen but I highly doubt they win again, even once. For starters in order to win they need to actually sit down like grown ups and sign a deal rather than sulking. Secondly, the Kings seem to lack some top shelf talent and teams like Pittsburgh and Detroit who won a singular Cup and another trip to the final never won more than one either. They had some all-time greats on their team as well. The Kings were more or less a team that was "there" to win it. Much like Boston in 2011. Good for them and all, but no one is going to be telling their grandkids about the L.A. Kings someday.
I agree that I think it is highly unlikely that the Kings win the next Cup, but I don't agree that the Kings don't have top shelf talent. In fact I would argue they have more top shelf talent than Pittsburgh. The difference, like Boston, is that the best of their top shelf talent is in goal and on D and their forwards are pretty impressive if you stop to think about it for a minute just like Boston's are.

Neither of those teams has Crosby or Malkin, but after that both Boston and LA are far, far better teams and the only question is can Crosby and Malkin balance the disparity in talent.

If this wasn't a capped league then the Penguins could build a dynasty because they have those players.

I am also 100% positive there will be people telling their grandkids about the LA Kings, their playoff performance was one of the most dominating ever, do you really think that people won't talk about a team that almost didn't make the playoffs and had serious trouble scoring all of a sudden turned into a steam roller in the playoffs?

People will make it out to be better than it was because it is a great story, LA's first Cup and the other reasons I mentioned. It bored me to be honest.

nmbr_24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2012, 08:45 AM
  #23
tony d
Honey Nut Cheerios
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,079
vCash: 500
While I didn't get interested in hockey until 1989, I still have read a lot on that hockey era. Yes only a handful of teams won the Cup but the gameplay was hugely entertaining during that time.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2012, 09:18 AM
  #24
Bexlyspeed
Registered User
 
Bexlyspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Astoria, Queens, N.Y
Country: United States
Posts: 1,136
vCash: 500
1976-1990 was anything but boring. yes the same teams won consecutive cups, but the playoffs were always exciting.

Islanders/Rangers pretty much every post season! and as good as the Isles were i believe they only swept the rags in '81 and were even eliminated by them in 79 after finishing top of the league

cinderella runs by the canucks and the north stars (who ousted Montreal along the way) and what was more dramatic than the Islanders sweeping the oilers in the finals?

and the style of hockey was much better too, back and forth hitting, some fights non stop end to end action!

Bexlyspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2012, 09:27 AM
  #25
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Don't count the Bruins out just yet. They had a bad postseason when their two top centers got hurt, but they're still talented and young and they have top players arriving onto an already pretty stacked roster. They could easily get another if things fall right. A "dynasty" might be a stretch, but this team is going to be exceedingly relevant for at least another 6 years or so, and that assumes they don't find a way to replace Chara.

If there's one thing we've learned about this team in the Chiarelli/Neely era is that they don't take undignified playoff exits well. I expect them to come out with a vengeance the next time they get a real chance to get out on the ice.

Dojji* 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 01:20 PM.

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.