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.

Greater dynasty: Gretzky's Oilers vs Trottier's Islanders

View Poll Results: Who are greater?
Gretzky's Oilers 61 50.41%
Trottier's Islanders 44 36.36%
Even 16 13.22%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2013, 05:25 PM
  #76
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
That has to count for something.
The Islanders got bounced out of the playoffs in 6 games by the Rangers.....that has to count for something right?

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 05:43 PM
  #77
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,771
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
I cant see the logic in picking the Oilers in this one. The Islanders won 4 consecutive cups, the Oilers took 4 cups in a 5 year span (The title says Gretzky Oilers, so I'm excluding the Oilers 1990 cup win). The Islanders had the better dynasty and quite frankly at their peaks, I think the Islanders where overall the better team.

It's interesting to note that both the Islanders and Oilers were in similar situations in 1982 and 1986 when both were gunning for a third straight cup. Both were down (the Islanders by two goals, the Oilers by one, late in the third period) in the deciding game of each series. The Islanders got the job done, the Oilers didnt. That has to count for something.
Hard to equate being down to the lowly Pens with being down to the Cup finalist Flames.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 06:30 PM
  #78
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
I cant see the logic in picking the Oilers in this one. The Islanders won 4 consecutive cups, the Oilers took 4 cups in a 5 year span (The title says Gretzky Oilers, so I'm excluding the Oilers 1990 cup win). The Islanders had the better dynasty and quite frankly at their peaks, I think the Islanders where overall the better team.

It's interesting to note that both the Islanders and Oilers were in similar situations in 1982 and 1986 when both were gunning for a third straight cup. Both were down (the Islanders by two goals, the Oilers by one, late in the third period) in the deciding game of each series. The Islanders got the job done, the Oilers didnt. That has to count for something.
It certainly counts. Just like the opposition they both faced along their entire respective/collective ways to all those championships counts, too.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:16 PM
  #79
Supreme King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The Islanders got bounced out of the playoffs in 6 games by the Rangers.....that has to count for something right?
We are talking dynasty years. Do you recall the Islanders being cup champs in 1979 much less then the "mighty" Oilers, who were two-time champs before they went down in "Flames" in 1986.

It's pretty simple. When the Oilers faced their great crisis in 1986, being down a goal in the 7th and deciding game, they failed to get the equalizer and were eliminated. We are talking about a team that scored 426 goals and yet with about 13 minutes left in the game, after Smiths monumental blunder, they failed to score. The Canadiens and Islanders both got the job done in 1979 and 1982. That is why they are superior to the Oilers when it comes to dynasties. 4 straight cups beats 4 out.of 5 no matter how you look at it.

Supreme King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:23 PM
  #80
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
We are talking dynasty years. Do you recall the Islanders being cup champs in 1979 much less then the "mighty" Oilers, who were two-time champs before they went down in "Flames" in 1986.

It's pretty simple. When the Oilers faced their great crisis in 1986, being down a goal in the 7th and deciding game, they failed to get the equalizer and were eliminated. We are talking about a team that scored 426 goals and yet with about 13 minutes left in the game, after Smiths monumental blunder, they failed to score. The Canadiens and Islanders both got the job done in 1979 and 1982. That is why they are superior to the Oilers when it comes to dynasties. 4 straight cups beats 4 out.of 5 no matter how you look at it.
And the Islanders took a President's Trophy and got bounced by the 91 point Rangers. I reject cherry picking the years covered to make you favs look better in comparison.

And btw, the '70s Habs were better than the dynasty Islanders too so why are you even bothering to bring them into this?

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:42 PM
  #81
Supreme King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Ant
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
And the Islanders took a President's Trophy and got bounced by the 91 point Rangers. I reject cherry picking the years covered to make you favs look better in comparison.

And btw, the '70s Habs were better than the dynasty Islanders too so why are you even bothering to bring them into this?
Cherry picking? Ever notice that when talk of dynasties are brought up they usually start when the team wins their first cup. 76-79 Habs, 80-83 Islanders and the Oilers start in 84. But never mind, lets play your way, 82 Oilers lose to the Kings in the first round, and are taught a lesson in 83 by the Isles.

The point of bringing the 70s Habs into the discussion was to give you a larger picture of dynasties facing an uphill climb to keep their cup streak intact. The Habs rose to the occasion to beat the Bruins while facing adversity. The Isles did the same in against the Pens. The Oilers did not against the Flames. the Oilers failure to when that game and a 3rd straight cup is a giant hole in their resume.

Supreme King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:53 PM
  #82
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
Ant

Cherry picking? Ever notice that when talk of dynasties are brought up they usually start when the team wins their first cup. 76-79 Habs, 80-83 Islanders and the Oilers start in 84. But never mind, lets play your way, 82 Oilers lose to the Kings in the first round, and are taught a lesson in 83 by the Isles.

The point of bringing the 70s Habs into the discussion was to give you a larger picture of dynasties facing an uphill climb to keep their cup streak intact. The Habs rose to the occasion to beat the Bruins while facing adversity. The Isles did the same in against the Pens. The Oilers did not against the Flames. the Oilers failure to when that game and a 3rd straight cup is a giant hole in their resume.
Hello, what the hell were the Islanders doing trailing the Pens in the first place? Having to comeback against a team you should be stomping 4 straight is NOT a point in your favor.

And btw, it IS, in fact, cherry picking when you're setting the parameters of the discussion in the way that's most favorable for the team you're plumping.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 08:29 PM
  #83
Supreme King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Hello, what the hell were the Islanders doing trailing the Pens in the first place? Having to comeback against a team you should be stomping 4 straight is NOT a point in your favor.

And btw, it IS, in fact, cherry picking when you're setting the parameters of the discussion in the way that's most favorable for the team you're plumping.
What the hell were the 119 point Oilers doing when they LOSS to an 89 point Flames team, a series most felt the Oilers would win in 4 or 5 games?? Care to answer that? You continue to not face the facts. Unlike the Oilers, who LOST in 7 games, the Islanders WON their series (in spectacular fashion) and a third straight Stanley Cup. That is what seperates the two dynasties. The Islanders got the job done while Oilers were forced to deal with drug allegations after their untimely exit

Supreme King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 10:02 AM
  #84
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
What the hell were the 119 point Oilers doing when they LOSS to an 89 point Flames team, a series most felt the Oilers would win in 4 or 5 games?? Care to answer that? You continue to not face the facts. Unlike the Oilers, who LOST in 7 games, the Islanders WON their series (in spectacular fashion) and a third straight Stanley Cup. That is what seperates the two dynasties. The Islanders got the job done while Oilers were forced to deal with drug allegations after their untimely exit
Well, the Flames were 2nd in the Western conference that year. Take out the games head-to-head with the Oilers in the regular season and it's a 106 point team vs a 86 point team (Calgary beat Edmonton 9-3 in their last regular season meeting before the playoffs, btw), which is still a harder opponent to face in the Division Final than, say, that 5th seeded Rangers team led by the legendary Robbie Ftorek and rocking a tandem of Steve Weeks and Eddie Mio (or, furthermore, the completely gassed 7th seed Nordiques that the Islanders faced in the very next round).

The next step after learning what happened, is trying to understand how and why.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 12:00 PM
  #85
Supreme King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, the Flames were 2nd in the Western conference that year. Take out the games head-to-head with the Oilers in the regular season and it's a 106 point team vs a 86 point team (Calgary beat Edmonton 9-3 in their last regular season meeting before the playoffs, btw), which is still a harder opponent to face in the Division Final than, say, that 5th seeded Rangers team led by the legendary Robbie Ftorek and rocking a tandem of Steve Weeks and Eddie Mio (or, furthermore, the completely gassed 7th seed Nordiques that the Islanders faced in the very next round).

The next step after learning what happened, is trying to understand how and why.
Care to explain what happened and why?

Fans of "Team Arrogance" tend to usually put their own spin on the 1986 debacle. "If it wasn't for Steve Smith" is usually the rallying cry, but what they never mention is that Calgary simply outworked and outplayed the Oilers in that series. Winning 3 out of 4 games at Northlands and leading the series 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 and winning 4-3 gives a better idea of how that series went. The Oilers failure to win more then two straight cups hurts them when they are brought in a conversation with the Islanders. 4 cups in 5 years is not quite like 4 straight straight.

Supreme King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 01:34 PM
  #86
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
Care to explain what happened and why?

Fans of "Team Arrogance" tend to usually put their own spin on the 1986 debacle. "If it wasn't for Steve Smith" is usually the rallying cry, but what they never mention is that Calgary simply outworked and outplayed the Oilers in that series. Winning 3 out of 4 games at Northlands and leading the series 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 and winning 4-3 gives a better idea of how that series went. The Oilers failure to win more then two straight cups hurts them when they are brought in a conversation with the Islanders. 4 cups in 5 years is not quite like 4 straight straight.
Actually it's exactly the same since it works out to 4 Cups in 5 years for both of them. To say that the Edmonton Oilers weren't a great playoff team, or that they couldn't perform with their backs to the wall is nonsense.

They made 6 Finals in 8 years. They had 5 Cups in 7 years, and the two losses came in 1986 after Steve Smith scored on their own net, and in 1989 when their best player was on the other team and helped turn what should have been a 4-0 sweep for the Gretzky Oilers into a Game 7 comeback from a 3-1 deficit.

Wayne Gretzky's Oilers would have kept winning. The only reason the OP can define the Gretzky Oilers dynasty as 1984-88 is because he was traded, not because they stopped winning. Even after they lost their top forward and defender, they were still Stanley Cup material.

The New York Islanders were kept together after 1983. They didn't lose Potvin and win a 4th Cup, then lose Bossy and win a 5th. They all stayed together. The Islanders dynasty ended because they stopped winning.

Even within the narrow frame of their first 4 Cups (+1986 for Edmonton), the Oilers are more dominant.

The Oilers .782 playoff win % from 84-88 beats the Isles .769 from 80-83.
The Oilers .640 RS win% beats the Isles .572.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 04:33 PM
  #87
Supreme King
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 68
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Actually it's exactly the same since it works out to 4 Cups in 5 years for both of them. To say that the Edmonton Oilers weren't a great playoff team, or that they couldn't perform with their backs to the wall is nonsense.

They made 6 Finals in 8 years. They had 5 Cups in 7 years, and the two losses came in 1986 after Steve Smith scored on their own net, and in 1989 when their best player was on the other team and helped turn what should have been a 4-0 sweep for the Gretzky Oilers into a Game 7 comeback from a 3-1 deficit.

Wayne Gretzky's Oilers would have kept winning. The only reason the OP can define the Gretzky Oilers dynasty as 1984-88 is because he was traded, not because they stopped winning. Even after they lost their top forward and defender, they were still Stanley Cup material.

The New York Islanders were kept together after 1983. They didn't lose Potvin and win a 4th Cup, then lose Bossy and win a 5th. They all stayed together. The Islanders dynasty ended because they stopped winning.

Even within the narrow frame of their first 4 Cups (+1986 for Edmonton), the Oilers are more dominant.

The Oilers .782 playoff win % from 84-88 beats the Isles .769 from 80-83.
The Oilers .640 RS win% beats the Isles .572.
Let me put it this way. 1980-83 Islanders dynasty is superior to the 1984-88 Oilers dynasty. 4 straight cups over 4 in 5. End of story.

Supreme King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 05:14 PM
  #88
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme King View Post
Let me put it this way. 1980-83 Islanders dynasty is superior to the 1984-88 Oilers dynasty. 4 straight cups over 4 in 5. End of story.
In a nut shell, simple math makes weighing simple for simpletons. It makes absolutely no difference to you how different the paths of either teams were through the playoffs; just matching Cups to counting fingers. And that's fine, but realize that there's a whole lot of the story left for you to discover before you get to "the end".

1985/86 Calgary Flames, with 3 Hall of Famers (MacDonald, MacInnis, Mullen), surrounded by Suter, Loob, Otto, Peplinski, Risebrough, Macoun, Tonelli, and two former 1st round picks coming into their own in Quinn and Reinhart, back by Vernon and Lemelin. Yeah, they weren't a team Edmonton should have expected to coast through. Many names ended up carved on the Stanley Cup three years later in '89 with Calgary.

But they were also a damn sight better than the '81/82 Rangers that the Islanders played at the "equivalent" point in the dynasty building - led by such marquee names as Ftorek, Maloney, Ruotsalainen, Johnstone, McClanahan, Leinonen, Beck, Laidlaw, Vadnais, etc (no HoFers - not even marginal ones - on the entire squad, to my knowledge) and backed by the great John Davidson, Steve Weeks, and Eddie Mio...

I mean... come on now. The fact that the same Edmonton squad came back and won back to backs again, and seemed poised to keep winning them as long as Gretzky was on the roster - proving strong enough without him to win another one almost immediately, regardless - has to mean at least as much as whatever weight you put on that blip on the radar when all things are considered. And, on top of that, of course, is all this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Actually it's exactly the same since it works out to 4 Cups in 5 years for both of them. To say that the Edmonton Oilers weren't a great playoff team, or that they couldn't perform with their backs to the wall is nonsense.

They made 6 Finals in 8 years. They had 5 Cups in 7 years, and the two losses came in 1986 after Steve Smith scored on their own net, and in 1989 when their best player was on the other team and helped turn what should have been a 4-0 sweep for the Gretzky Oilers into a Game 7 comeback from a 3-1 deficit.

Wayne Gretzky's Oilers would have kept winning. The only reason the OP can define the Gretzky Oilers dynasty as 1984-88 is because he was traded, not because they stopped winning. Even after they lost their top forward and defender, they were still Stanley Cup material.

The New York Islanders were kept together after 1983. They didn't lose Potvin and win a 4th Cup, then lose Bossy and win a 5th. They all stayed together. The Islanders dynasty ended because they stopped winning.

Even within the narrow frame of their first 4 Cups (+1986 for Edmonton), the Oilers are more dominant.

The Oilers .782 playoff win % from 84-88 beats the Isles .769 from 80-83.
The Oilers .640 RS win% beats the Isles .572.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 03-16-2013 at 05:35 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 05:31 PM
  #89
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Actually it's exactly the same since it works out to 4 Cups in 5 years for both of them. To say that the Edmonton Oilers weren't a great playoff team, or that they couldn't perform with their backs to the wall is nonsense.

They made 6 Finals in 8 years. They had 5 Cups in 7 years, and the two losses came in 1986 after Steve Smith scored on their own net, and in 1989 when their best player was on the other team and helped turn what should have been a 4-0 sweep for the Gretzky Oilers into a Game 7 comeback from a 3-1 deficit.

Wayne Gretzky's Oilers would have kept winning. The only reason the OP can define the Gretzky Oilers dynasty as 1984-88 is because he was traded, not because they stopped winning. Even after they lost their top forward and defender, they were still Stanley Cup material.

The New York Islanders were kept together after 1983. They didn't lose Potvin and win a 4th Cup, then lose Bossy and win a 5th. They all stayed together. The Islanders dynasty ended because they stopped winning.

Even within the narrow frame of their first 4 Cups (+1986 for Edmonton), the Oilers are more dominant.

The Oilers .782 playoff win % from 84-88 beats the Isles .769 from 80-83.
The Oilers .640 RS win% beats the Isles .572.
I wouldn't bother my man. The fact that he's referring to the Oilers as "Team Arrogance" is all we need to know that that poster has an agenda. No amount of logic or rational evidence is going to crack that bottle of HaterAid so there's no point in letting him wind people up.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 05:23 AM
  #90
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Islanders. 4 straight = the greater dynasty.

Trying to "prove" the Oil was the greater dynasty by virtue of stats and paper rosters instead of pointing to the irrefutable stat of consecutive Cup wins is the first step down the road of "Should have won" and "Deserved to win" Cups that history shows weren't.

The proof is in the record books on this one.

NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 03:32 PM
  #91
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,406
vCash: 500
4 Cups is actually amazing and I think we take it for granted nowadays and brush it off as just a product of a different era. Actually, it wasn't a product of ANY era. There have only been three times in NHL history where a team won 4 Cups in a row. You have to remember one thing, the Cup champs have a target on their backs from day one. I remember Glen Sather saying that winning the first Cup with the Oilers in 1984 was almost a relief but he was more interested in defending it in 1985 because defending it is harder than winning it the first time.

You have to give the Islanders credit here, when faced with adversity they defended it 3 more times. In 1984 in that classic overtime against the Rangers and at a time when the dynasty was still alive and the streak still present, they turned over a clutch performance to get past the Rangers. Only the 1984 Oilers in the final beat them and the last team to beat the Islanders in the playoffs were the 1979 Rangers. That is just absurd when you think of it.

And while we know better now, the idea of the Oilers being a dynasty was on hold in 1986. Good for them for winning two more but it certainly wasn't a guarantee at that time. In the Islanders defense, they had 4 in a row already in the bag.

A little history here to help you appreciate just how hard it is to defend the Cup. The last 4 teams to defend the Cup lost the following year in Game 7, three of them were at home. This goes to show you that teams always bring their "A" game against the champs. Detroit was the closest one to repeating and lost in Game 7 in the final. I don't think we appreciate just how hard it is to win consecutive Cups.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 04:04 PM
  #92
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
4 Cups is actually amazing and I think we take it for granted nowadays and brush it off as just a product of a different era. Actually, it wasn't a product of ANY era. There have only been three times in NHL history where a team won 4 Cups in a row. You have to remember one thing, the Cup champs have a target on their backs from day one. I remember Glen Sather saying that winning the first Cup with the Oilers in 1984 was almost a relief but he was more interested in defending it in 1985 because defending it is harder than winning it the first time.

You have to give the Islanders credit here, when faced with adversity they defended it 3 more times. In 1984 in that classic overtime against the Rangers and at a time when the dynasty was still alive and the streak still present, they turned over a clutch performance to get past the Rangers. Only the 1984 Oilers in the final beat them and the last team to beat the Islanders in the playoffs were the 1979 Rangers. That is just absurd when you think of it.

And while we know better now, the idea of the Oilers being a dynasty was on hold in 1986. Good for them for winning two more but it certainly wasn't a guarantee at that time. In the Islanders defense, they had 4 in a row already in the bag.

A little history here to help you appreciate just how hard it is to defend the Cup. The last 4 teams to defend the Cup lost the following year in Game 7, three of them were at home. This goes to show you that teams always bring their "A" game against the champs. Detroit was the closest one to repeating and lost in Game 7 in the final. I don't think we appreciate just how hard it is to win consecutive Cups.
I think everyone can jive with that. I still think there's foul air to giving credit to the Islanders for making it past a 77 point regular season 5th seed adversary by way of penalizing the Oilers for getting derailed by an 89 point regular season 2nd seed at the equivalent mileage post along the way. That it culminated in ultimately sweeping a team with a <0.500 record in the Final for that 3rd Cup "stinks" even more (c.f. Edmonton who rebounded in '86/87 and knocked off the Eastern Conference #1 seed for their 3rd Cup).

I guess I personally don't think the consecutive aspect outweighs the paths and performances of those Oilers compared with those Islanders - and this is tossing the quality of roster/player angle completely aside for the benefit of the pro-Islanders camp, mind you, and the fact that the Oilers started their dynasty by way of putting a stop to the very dynasty we're comparing.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 04:45 PM
  #93
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I think everyone can jive with that. I still think there's foul air to giving credit to the Islanders for making it past a 77 point regular season 5th seed adversary by way of penalizing the Oilers for getting derailed by an 89 point regular season 2nd seed at the equivalent mileage post along the way. That it culminated in ultimately sweeping a team with a <0.500 record in the Final for that 3rd Cup "stinks" even more (c.f. Edmonton who rebounded in '86/87 and knocked off the Eastern Conference #1 seed for their 3rd Cup).

I guess I personally don't think the consecutive aspect outweighs the paths and performances of those Oilers compared with those Islanders - and this is tossing the quality of roster/player angle completely aside for the benefit of the pro-Islanders camp, mind you, and the fact that the Oilers started their dynasty by way of putting a stop to the very dynasty we're comparing.
I think the Oilers definitely played the tougher teams in the final. There wasn't one so-called mediocre team out of the 4. With the Isles you had Minnesota and Vancouver. Take that any way you'd like it. However, I will say that the Islanders of 1980 had what I believe to be the hardest path to the Cup out of anyone so it may just even out in that respect. I think the hardest path for the Oilers was 1988 and I'll consider the 1980 Islanders path harder.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 05:49 PM
  #94
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I think the Oilers definitely played the tougher teams in the final. There wasn't one so-called mediocre team out of the 4. With the Isles you had Minnesota and Vancouver. Take that any way you'd like it. However, I will say that the Islanders of 1980 had what I believe to be the hardest path to the Cup out of anyone so it may just even out in that respect. I think the hardest path for the Oilers was 1988 and I'll consider the 1980 Islanders path harder.
And you know, I'd love to see the conversation go down that route instead of "hurr... consecutive is better... durrrrr..." Perhaps it would even out in the end, perhaps not. Either way it's a fundamental part of weighing these two dynasties, imo, since the number of championships isn't the deciding factor between the two, and there are numerous stars at their peak on either side; it's obviously part "how" they won them, as well. Lots of the second S in K.I.S.S. trying to claim that it is as simple as counting to 4 the fastest, though.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 09:31 PM
  #95
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
And you know, I'd love to see the conversation go down that route instead of "hurr... consecutive is better... durrrrr..." Perhaps it would even out in the end, perhaps not. Either way it's a fundamental part of weighing these two dynasties, imo, since the number of championships isn't the deciding factor between the two, and there are numerous stars at their peak on either side; it's obviously part "how" they won them, as well. Lots of the second S in K.I.S.S. trying to claim that it is as simple as counting to 4 the fastest, though.
Consecutive championships trumps non-consecutive every time when it comes to "dynasty". Remaining on top after reaching the top is as fundamental as it gets to the question no matter how much you wish otherwise or try to imply those that disagree with you are stupid. If the Oil had won 4 straight, then you'd have a starting point for the rest of your argument down the route you want (where you're trying to prove the Oil was a better team or something. that's a different question). As it stands, their unblemished streak of Cups doesn't match the Isles.


Last edited by NorthStar4Canes: 03-20-2013 at 10:20 PM.
NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 11:48 PM
  #96
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
Consecutive championships trumps non-consecutive every time when it comes to "dynasty". Remaining on top after reaching the top is as fundamental as it gets to the question no matter how much you wish otherwise or try to imply those that disagree with you are stupid. If the Oil had won 4 straight, then you'd have a starting point for the rest of your argument down the route you want (where you're trying to prove the Oil was a better team or something. that's a different question). As it stands, their unblemished streak of Cups doesn't match the Isles.
I'm not claiming that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I'm claiming that anyone who stops thinking at the consecutive part in an effort to keep it simple. I think it's stupid because it forces you to accept that the '55-60 Habs were a "better" dynasty than the '75-79 Habs because not only is consecutive better, but obviously more, consecutively, is automatically better. It's that simple, right? And obviously the Leafs' dynasty of '61-64 is automatically, without debate, better than the Detroit dynasty of '49-55, right, because 3 consecutive Cup trumps the fact that the Detroit squad only managed consecutive Cups once out of their 4?

Yeah, there are enough examples for me to conclude that simple counting of Cups in a row is stupid as an attempted be-all, end-all argument for comparing dynasties.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2013, 11:53 PM
  #97
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I'm not claiming that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I'm claiming that anyone who stops thinking at the consecutive part in an effort to keep it simple. I think it's stupid because it forces you to accept that the '55-60 Habs were a "better" dynasty than the '75-79 Habs because not only is consecutive better, but obviously more, consecutively, is automatically better. It's that simple, right? And obviously the Leafs' dynasty of '61-64 is automatically, without debate, better than the Detroit dynasty of '49-55, right, because 3 consecutive Cup trumps the fact that the Detroit squad only managed consecutive Cups once out of their 4?

Yeah, there are enough examples for me to conclude that simple counting of Cups in a row is stupid as an attempted be-all, end-all argument for comparing dynasties.
It's hard to pick between the '50s Habs and the '70s Habs. I would HOPE no one would use the 5-in-a-row versus 4-in-a-row as their decider: There's a hell of a lot more to it than that.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 12:02 AM
  #98
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
It's hard to pick between the '50s Habs and the '70s Habs. I would HOPE no one would use the 5-in-a-row versus 4-in-a-row as their decider: There's a hell of a lot more to it than that.
Definitely. But you got my point. If it's the start and end point of one's evaluation... it's a K.I.S.S. fail, imo.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 12:07 AM
  #99
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Definitely. But you got my point. If it's the start and end point of one's evaluation... it's a K.I.S.S. fail, imo.
We're in agreement. It boggles my mind really: Reductio ad absurdum on steroids.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2013, 12:11 AM
  #100
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
We're in agreement. It boggles my mind really: Reductio ad absurdum on steroids.
Heh, that's a good way to put it.

Ohashi_Jouzu 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 09:36 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.