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

Best F-D-G combination ever?

View Poll Results: FDG
Gordie Howe-Red Kelly-Terry Sawchuk 23 7.99%
Dit Clapper-Eddie Shore-Tiny Thompson 0 0%
Wayne Gretzky-Paul Coffey-Grant Fuhr 65 22.57%
Mario Lemieux-Paul Coffey-Tom Barrasso 7 2.43%
Phil Esposito-Bobby Orr-Gerry Cheevers 21 7.29%
Jean Beliveau-Doug Harvey-Jacques Plante 40 13.89%
Steve Yzerman-Nicklas Lidstrom-Dominik Hasek 66 22.92%
Guy Lafleur-Larry Robinson-Ken Dryden 20 6.94%
Bobby Hull-Pierre Pilote-Glenn Hall 4 1.39%
Frank Nighbor-Sprague Cleghorn-Clint Benedict 0 0%
Mark Messier-Brian Leetch-Mike Richter 0 0%
Joe Sakic-Ray Bourque-Patrick Roy 39 13.54%
Dave Keon-Tim Horton-Johnny Bower 2 0.69%
Syl Apps-Red Horner-Turk Broda 0 0%
Howie Morenz-Sylvio Mantha-George Hainsworth 1 0.35%
Voters: 288. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-01-2013, 08:30 PM
  #51
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
You kidding look at that roster. The 70's Habs are the only team that you can even make a case for as far as greatest teams of all time.
I don't care if Spongebob Squarepants is on the roster, look at the stats.

They gave up 310 goals. No team gave up 300 goals last year. In fact it's been 6 years since a team gave up 300 goals.

Now that was a different era but even back then their goals against was pedestrian.

They were the greatest offense ever, no question, but the greatest team of all time has to be great both ways.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 08:31 PM
  #52
Sasso09
Registered User
 
Sasso09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 5,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
Steve Yzerman is a reasonable vote for a top 10 center all time. Sakic over Yzerman is not an easy position.
If youre talking about Career wise, both Sakic and Yzerman are good candidates for top 10... But if we're basing it off of top 10 at their Peak.... Those guys get bumped off by guys like Lindros, Crosby, Foppa and Malkin

Sasso09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 08:58 PM
  #53
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
You can use that same argument for Beliveau-Harvey-Plante.

All 3 are generally considered better at their respective positions, too.
True, but I would take Robinson over Harvey.

I think it's overstated how dominant Harvery was both ways just looking at the stats.

From what I've heard he was from a different universe defensively. Offensively, I think he benefits from being one of few defensemen producing in an era that didn't have offensive defensemen.

And it's not like offensive defenseman didn't exist before Harvery's era: Eddie Shore, Ebbie Goodfellow, King Clancy, Art Ross. It certainly wasn't widely accepted and practiced like it is today, but I don't think the concept was as foreign pre-Orr as it's made out to be.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:03 PM
  #54
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I don't care if Spongebob Squarepants is on the roster, look at the stats.

They gave up 310 goals. No team gave up 300 goals last year. In fact it's been 6 years since a team gave up 300 goals.

Now that was a different era but even back then their goals against was pedestrian.

They were the greatest offense ever, no question, but the greatest team of all time has to be great both ways.
If they weren't great both ways they wouldn't have won 5 cups in 7 years and been the last team to have legitimate dynasty. I don't have the stats here but I bet in the 80's giving up 300 goals in a season was pretty good.

Edit: Just looked up the 86 flames who made the cup finals and they also have up over 300 goals. The Habs who won the cup gave up slightly less in the 275 range.

In contrast a bad team in 86 (red wings) gave up close to 400 goals.


Last edited by MessierII: 01-01-2013 at 09:09 PM.
MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:08 PM
  #55
nowhereman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,562
vCash: 500
Went Beliveau/Harvey/Plante. All three players are, arguably, top ten players of all time.

Beliveau>Yzerman
Harvey>Lidstrom
Plante<Hasek

nowhereman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:16 PM
  #56
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
If they weren't great both ways they wouldn't have won 5 cups in 7 years and been the last team to have legitimate dynasty. I don't have the stats here but I bet in the 80's giving up 300 goals in a season was pretty good.

Edit: Just looked up the 86 flames who made the cup finals and they also have up over 300 goals. The Habs who won the cup gave up slightly less in the 275 range.

In contrast a bad team in 86 (red wings) gave up close to 400 goals.
No it wasn't good, they were 13th in the league in 85-86 out of 21 teams!

It's NEVER good. In some eras it's horrendous and in some it's middle of the pack but it's never good. Your defense is basically "well they didn't give up 400 like the Red Wings." Yeah you're not supposed to

There were teams that didn't even make the playoffs that gave up less goals. Some good teams gave up alot of goals too but they were still better defensively than the Oilers.

Even in their Cup years they didn't finish higher than 8th and even that is mostly because they had the puck the entire game.

Outside of the '90 team which played completely different hockey without Gretzky and Coffey, the Oilers Cup teams were all lousy defensively.

They basically bludgeoned the whole league to death with goals. It's nothing to be ashamed of. 5 Cups in 7 years is amazing, I don't care how you do it. But you can't compare them to the 70's Habs who are still to this day the only team in NHL history (in '77 and '78) to score 350 goals and allow less than 200.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:21 PM
  #57
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper View Post
You can use that same argument for Beliveau-Harvey-Plante.

All 3 are generally considered better at their respective positions, too.
I would have to agree with you, if i was picing a Canadiens trio this is the superior one.

Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:23 PM
  #58
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,056
vCash: 500
I'm disappointed in myself for not thinking of adding Trottier-Potvin-Smith.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:23 PM
  #59
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
True, but I would take Robinson over Harvey.

I think it's overstated how dominant Harvery was both ways just looking at the stats.

From what I've heard he was from a different universe defensively. Offensively, I think he benefits from being one of few defensemen producing in an era that didn't have offensive defensemen.

And it's not like offensive defenseman didn't exist before Harvery's era: Eddie Shore, Ebbie Goodfellow, King Clancy, Art Ross. It certainly wasn't widely accepted and practiced like it is today, but I don't think the concept was as foreign pre-Orr as it's made out to be.
Thats because you don't understand the stats. Back in Harveys day defenseman did not rush the puck or have almost any offensive impact. Harvey was Bobby Orr before anything like that ever existed. Harvey revolutionized the game.

Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:24 PM
  #60
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
No it wasn't good, they were 13th in the league in 85-86 out of 21 teams!

There were teams that didn't even make the playoffs that gave up less goals.

Even in their Cup years they didn't finish higher than 8th and even that is mostly because they had the puck the entire game.

Outside of the '90 team which played completely different hockey without Gretzky and Coffey, the Oilers Cup teams were all lousy defensively.

They basically bludgeoned the whole league to death with goals. It's nothing to be ashamed of. 5 Cups in 7 years is amazing, I don't care how you do it. But you can't compare them to the 70's Habs who are still to this day the only team in NHL history (in '77 and '78) to score 350 goals and allow less than 200.
So they were middle of the pack to above average far from lousy and rediculously good offense more than makes up for that. I personally don't think you could take any team in it's prime through a time machine and have them beat the 80's Oilers. They would dominate skill-wise, dominate physically if you challenged them that way. Dynasty's should have died with the Islanders the Oilers were just that good. Scoring 446 goals and allowing 310 is a similar goal differential. Again the 70's Habs are the only team you can make a case for but your original comment that they "aren't even close" is just flat out rediculous.

Edit: and that's not even taking into account the watered down talent pool you had in the 70's. You had the league more than double in a short span of time plus the WHA essentially all drawing from the talent of North America mostly Canada.


Last edited by MessierII: 01-01-2013 at 09:38 PM.
MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:27 PM
  #61
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
Thats because you don't understand the stats. Back in Harveys day defenseman did not rush the puck or have almost any offensive impact. Harvey was Bobby Orr before anything like that ever existed. Harvey revolutionized the game.
Again, this is the idea that offensive defensemen didn't exist before Doug Harvey. I just don't buy it.

Rushing the puck was invented by Art Ross in 1905. This is before Harvey was born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
So they were middle of the pack to above average far from lousy and rediculously good offense more than makes up for that. I personally don't think you could take any team in it's prime through a time machine and have them beat the 80's Oilers. They would dominate skill-wise, dominate physically if you challenged them that way. Dynasty's should have died with the Islanders the Oilers were just that good. Scoring 446 goals and allowing 310 is a similar goal differential. Again the 70's are the only team you can make a case for but your original comment that they "aren't even close" is just flat out rediculous.
I think if they played each other the '77/'78 Habs would sweep the Oiler's best team (take your pick) in 4 games.

That's my opinion.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:33 PM
  #62
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Again, this is the idea that offensive defensemen didn't exist before Doug Harvey. I just don't buy it.

Rushing the puck was invented by Art Ross in 1905. This is before Harvey was born.



I think if they played each other the '77/'78 Habs would sweep the Oiler's best team (take your pick) in 4 games.

That's my opinion.
Then why did the 81 oilers manage to beat them? Did everyone fall off a cliff in 3 years?

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:41 PM
  #63
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Then why did the 81 oilers manage to beat them? Did everyone fall off a cliff in 3 years?
Ken Dryden retiring probably has a little something to do with it. They couldn't play the same game without Dryden as an insurance policy. The team's offense completely fell off a cliff.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:43 PM
  #64
intylerwetrust
Space Oddity
 
intylerwetrust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,512
vCash: 500
Beliveau > Yzerman

Harvey > Lidstrom

Plante = Hasek

intylerwetrust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:45 PM
  #65
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Then why did the 81 oilers manage to beat them? Did everyone fall off a cliff in 3 years?
Lafleur actually did fall off a cliff in the early 80s. Steve Shutt fell with him. Jacques Lemaire retired. Ken Dryden retired.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:48 PM
  #66
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Ken Dryden retiring probably has a little something to do with it. They couldn't play the same game without Dryden as an insurance policy. The team's offense completely fell off a cliff.
Most of the core was still intact and they were actually a very young team the Oilers were literally teenagers and yet they couldn't win a game.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:48 PM
  #67
Nazem Gretzky
Eller 4 Selke
 
Nazem Gretzky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Francais-land
Country: France
Posts: 10,102
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Nazem Gretzky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
Being +71 and +61 has alot to do with putting up 353 points, no?

Last time I checked, you win games by scoring more than you let in.

It is irrelevant how many goals were let in, you even said yourself, it was a different era. More goals were scored. Despite that, Gretzky and Coffey both were HUGE + players. They dominated, AND they won 4 cups together.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I don't care if Spongebob Squarepants is on the roster, look at the stats.

They gave up 310 goals. No team gave up 300 goals last year. In fact it's been 6 years since a team gave up 300 goals.

Now that was a different era but even back then their goals against was pedestrian.

They were the greatest offense ever, no question, but the greatest team of all time has to be great both ways.

Wrong, the greatest team of all time has to WIN.

Nazem Gretzky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:49 PM
  #68
MastuhNinks
Registered User
 
MastuhNinks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Iron Throne
Posts: 4,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
I don't care if Spongebob Squarepants is on the roster, look at the stats.

They gave up 310 goals. No team gave up 300 goals last year. In fact it's been 6 years since a team gave up 300 goals.

Now that was a different era but even back then their goals against was pedestrian.

They were the greatest offense ever, no question, but the greatest team of all time has to be great both ways.
You seem to be ignoring how much era plays a part. The year they gave up 310 goals they were 13th out of 21 teams in goals against (while being 1st in goals for by 70+ goals). They also had an insane goal differential of +116, which is one of the highest in league history.

Speaking of which... Goal differential isn't that bad of a way to evaluate a team. The '76-'77 Habs had a goal differential of +216, which is absolutely absurd (to put in perspective... The best team lockout to lockout was the 2005-2006 Senators with a +103).

MastuhNinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:51 PM
  #69
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagorim Jarg View Post
Lafleur actually did fall off a cliff in the early 80s. Steve Shutt fell with him. Jacques Lemaire retired. Ken Dryden retired.
Lafleur and Shutt were 28 years old both coming off 70 point seasons.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 09:55 PM
  #70
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastuhNinks View Post
You seem to be ignoring how much era plays a part. The year they gave up 310 goals they were 13th out of 21 teams. They also had an insane goal differential of +116, which is one of the highest in league history.

Speaking of which... Goal differential isn't that bad of a way to evaluate a team. The '76-'77 Habs had a goal differential of +216, which is absolutely absurd (to put in perspective... The best team lockout to lockout was the 2005-2006 Senators with a +103).
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the 70's was a watered down era with less teams and less skilled players on average. There's a reason there was so much goonery in the 70's and it's because the league more than doubled so quickly and was losing talent to the WHA all while using only North America, primarily Canada, as a talent pool. The average NHLer in the 60's and 80's was much more skilled than in the 70's the Habs were a good team in a weak era.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 10:03 PM
  #71
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Most of the core was still intact and they were actually a very young team the Oilers were literally teenagers and yet they couldn't win a game.
They lost a top 10 all time goalie. It completely changed the culture.

They also lost Jacques Lemaire, an extremely underrated piece that was having 50 goal/90 point seasons on their 2nd line. To go from him to Mario Tremblay as your 2C is a massive loss in depth.

It's not the same team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Amazing Ralph View Post
Last time I checked, you win games by scoring more than you let in.

It is irrelevant how many goals were let in, you even said yourself, it was a different era. More goals were scored. Despite that, Gretzky and Coffey both were HUGE + players. They dominated, AND they won 4 cups together.

Wrong, the greatest team of all time has to WIN.
And they did win. And they did dominate. They did it their way and they didn't have to do it any other way.

I'm not saying the 80's Oilers are a bad team. Matter of fact I think they're #2 all-time and I'd even put them ahead of the 80's Islanders. My point is they're not #1. That's all I'm saying. Not being as good as a team that lost 8 games in 1977 is nothing to be in therapy over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MastuhNinks View Post
You seem to be ignoring how much era plays a part. The year they gave up 310 goals they were 13th out of 21 teams in goals against (while being 1st in goals for by 70+ goals). They also had an insane goal differential of +116, which is one of the highest in league history.

Speaking of which... Goal differential isn't that bad of a way to evaluate a team. The '76-'77 Habs had a goal differential of +216, which is absolutely absurd (to put in perspective... The best team lockout to lockout was the 2005-2006 Senators with a +103).
Well there you go. The Habs have a goal differential that's superior by 100 goals. That's my point.

Machinehead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 10:20 PM
  #72
MastuhNinks
Registered User
 
MastuhNinks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Iron Throne
Posts: 4,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinehead View Post
And they did win. And they did dominate. They did it their way and they didn't have to do it any other way.

I'm not saying the 80's Oilers are a bad team. Matter of fact I think they're #2 all-time and I'd even put them ahead of the 80's Islanders. My point is they're not #1. That's all I'm saying. Not being as good as a team that lost 8 games in 1977 is nothing to be in therapy over.



Well there you go. The Habs have a goal differential that's superior by 100 goals. That's my point.
Okay, that's fair, as long as you're not downplaying the excellence of that Oilers team. Thinking the Habs were better is pretty reasonable.

MastuhNinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 11:30 PM
  #73
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Lafleur and Shutt were 28 years old both coming off 70 point seasons.
70 points for Lafleur is falling off a cliff. He was a couple seasons removed from a Hart trophy.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 11:31 PM
  #74
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the 70's was a watered down era with less teams
You've got it backwards. More teams create a watered down product, not less. Same amount of talent, more teams to spread it out over.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-01-2013, 11:34 PM
  #75
The Red Line
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
Who's in the top 10 players of all time? Steve Yzerman? Surely you jest. He can't hold a jockstrap to the likes of Beliveau or Howe, he isn't even one of the 10 best players at his own position.

And on top of that the 90's Red Wings weren't in their primes at the same time. If we're going by primes I'll take the Avs trio over them without much thinking since I'd always take Sakic over Yzerman, Bourque easily over Lidstrom and Roy easily over Hasek and that line of thinking (basing your vote on primes without taking into account when their prime seasons took place) would be quite ridiculous.
LMAO this is the most biased post ever.

The Red Line 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 02:08 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.